Business Before Questions

King’s Speech (Answer to Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That His Majesty, having been attended with its Address of 7th November, was pleased to receive the same very graciously and give the following Answer:
I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Transport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bus Services: England

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of bus service levels in England.

Richard Foord: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of local bus services.

Fabian Hamilton: What steps he is taking to improve bus services in Leeds.

Guy Opperman: The Government continue to provide unprecedented investment into buses. Since the pandemic, we have announced more than £4.5 billion of support for bus services in England outside London, including £1 billion recently reallocated from HS2 to improve services in the north and the midlands through Network North. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by 19% to 3.4 billion in the year ending March 2023, and we are seeing patronage increase in some areas.

Kerry McCarthy: It has been three years since the Government published their national bus strategy, but we are still waiting for the promised guidance on what constitutes “socially and economically necessary” bus services for which local authorities can provide subsidies. While we wait, people in Stapleton, in my constituency, are having to walk a mile to get to a bus stop to catch a  bus to the city centre, because First Bus says it is not commercially profitable to run a service through Stapleton and there is no money to subsidise it. Last July, a Minister told me that guidance would be issued in this Parliament, which is clearly close to coming to an end. When will we see that guidance?

Guy Opperman: We particularly want to try to assist the hon. Lady and her local authority with the finances. The West of England combined authority receives £1.1 million every year through the bus service operators grant to subsidise socially necessary bus services. It has also been allocated in excess of £1.2 billion in city region sustainable transport settlements 1 and 2 to deliver transport infrastructure, which includes the bus infrastructure the hon. Lady requires.

Richard Foord: As a regular bus user myself, I recognise it when people in rural Devon tell me that some buses fail to appear, meaning they miss connections with trains as a result. The services are well used by college students. Unreliable bus services not only affect the productivity of the college students, but of their parents who are then called upon to help the students make the journey to college, curtailing their working day. What can the Government do to encourage better co-ordination between rail and buses to get students to college on time?

Guy Opperman: That depends on funding, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware because I raised it with him in his Adjournment debate on 19 December. Devon County Council has been awarded £17.4 million to deliver its bus service improvement plan, but there should be better integration between the providers, the local authority and the rail companies.

Fabian Hamilton: Our bus services in Leeds have been unreliable for years, and yet the Leeds City Council Conservative group wanted more of the same and hoped the problem would just go away. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Labour’s West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, on taking the significant decision to bring our buses back into public control, so they can once again be run for people and not for profit?

Guy Opperman: I had the dubious honour of being praised as the hon. Gentleman’s favourite MP earlier this week—damned by faint praise. I would gently push back that the West Yorkshire Mayor is able to do that only because this Government have provided unprecedented funding of in excess of £2.1 billion in the devolved settlement under the city region sustainable transport settlement.

Anna Firth: Southend welcomes the £1 million of bus service improvement plan funding that has already enabled Conservative cabinet member Kevin Buck to reinstate the much-loved 25A route, but we need more. Will the Minister commit to come to my high-level bus summit on Monday, to listen to residents and see what more we can do?

Guy Opperman: In the time-honoured tradition, I  can only say yes to my hon. Friend. She is a doughty champion for Southend. I would be delighted to attend  her bus summit, to speak to the relevant councillors and to explain how the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators’ grant funding is transforming local bus provision.

Siobhan Baillie: Never mess with busy mums and dads, not least because I am one and I know that the Minister is as well. Parents in Arlingham, Frampton, Elmore and Longney are really struggling with rural school bus transport. This is not all about money; it is about reliability, safety and fairness. Indeed, they feel that their children are discriminated against versus what children in towns and cities receive. Gloucestershire County Council is doing a lot. It is stretching itself, but we are really struggling to find solutions. Will the Minister meet me and Councillor Stephen Davies to see whether we can find solutions for our parents in the communities?

Guy Opperman: I would be delighted to do so. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is standing up for her local community in this way. Clearly, it is a question of integrating the particular services, whether they are local or school provision, but it is definitely something that we can sort.

Paul Howell: It was good to meet my hon. Friend the Minister and the residents of Fishburn in the Sedgefield constituency recently; and he then followed up with Arriva. Will he endorse my campaign to reconnect Fishburn, Trimdon and Sedgefield back with Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, which were cut off by the removal of the X21? Does he also agree that rural services to places such as these are the critical platform to enable opportunity to be spread and a key reason for the BSIP funding?

Guy Opperman: It was a pleasure to attend the meeting at Fishburn Community Hall, meet the local residents and councillors, be offered a pancake on Shrove Tuesday and discuss bus services and bus funding. I have to say that there is no doubt whatever that the improvement of the X21, in particular taking residents and workers into Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, seems to be utterly sensible, and I will continue to support my hon. Friend’s campaign and meet again with Arriva to ensure that it happens for the people of Fishburn and Trimdon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Simon Lightwood: Good morning, Mr Speaker. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus published a report last week, which found huge regional variation in bus passenger satisfaction across the country, with large numbers of passengers “being let down”. Under the Tories’ deregulation of the bus sector, passenger satisfaction with some of our operators is miles below the average of 80%, with some as low as a dismal 66%. In places such as West Yorkshire, Labour Mayors are not standing for it any longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said, Tracy Brabin has announced her intention to pursue franchising to reverse decades of Tory decline. But the vast majority of local authorities do not have those powers, so will the Minister adopt Labour’s plan to give every local transport authority the same powers to take back control of their bus services?

Guy Opperman: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was at the launch of the said report and have read it. He will be aware that, for example, one reason for the complications is that the number of people working from home has increased by 40%. We have a plan to tackle that with the record investment that is being made to Mayors.[Official Report, 25 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 13MC.] (Correction) He talks about franchising, but it is also the case, without a shadow of a doubt, that he does not have a plan to finance it, particularly for rural local authorities. What is the case is that, when Labour organisations are challenged on this, they struggle to find out how they will deal with the funding. The truth is that there is no plan and they are not putting forward any funding. Individual people who attended that event were genuinely in shock at the shadow Secretary of State’s suggestion that Labour was going to do this, but was unsure about how it would fund it.

Seafarer Welfare: P&O Ferries

Charlotte Nichols: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of seafarer welfare standards on P&O Ferries’ fleet.

Anthony Browne: I wish to make it clear that the dismissal two years ago by P&O Ferries of nearly 800 seafarers without notice and without consultation was completely unacceptable, which is why this Government introduced a comprehensive package of measures to improve the welfare of seafarers and to stop the abuse.
On the specifics of the question, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency periodically inspects vessels that enter UK ports to assess their compliance with international standards, including those in the Maritime Labour Convention. We expect all operators to meet if not exceed those standards, and the UK continues to play a leading role internationally in driving up working conditions across the maritime sector. We are pleased that, just this weekend, P&O Ferries has committed to signing the Seafarers’ Charter along with four other operators. We will work with P&O Ferries to support it in its application for chartered status and assess its welfare standards against the charter’s requirements.

Charlotte Nichols: Two years on from P&O Ferries’ shocking attack on seafarer jobs, trade union rights and employment law, the legal loophole that it used to escape criminal sanctions has still not been closed. The P&O seafarers were UK-based workers, but because P&O Ferries had flagged its ships out to Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas, P&O and, crucially, the Government knew that criminal sanctions, including fines for the offences that it committed, would not apply. Why have the Government not closed that loophole?

Anthony Browne: As I said, the Government have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to stop the abuse of seafarers. In particular, we have introduced the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023, which will come into force this summer and ensure the minimum wage for seafarers in the UK. We have the minimum wage corridor that is opening up this summer with France, ensuring the minimum wage across the channel, and we have the seafarers’ charter, which raises standards far higher. As I said, P&O and four other operators have applied  to join it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Louise Haigh: Last Sunday marked the two-year anniversary of P&O Ferries illegally sacking 786 workers, but two years on nothing has changed. This week an investigation by ITV and The Guardian revealed that P&O Ferries is not only paying many of its workers less than half the minimum wage but forcing staff to work 12-hour shifts seven days a week for up to 17 weeks at a time. France’s maritime Minister has called that “dangerous” and “not moral”, and has changed the law to stop it happening. The Seafarers’ Wages Act will not curb that treatment, nor will the Government’s voluntary charter, so when will the Government act to prevent those exploitative practices from happening in our waters?

Anthony Browne: The Government agree that seafarers should obviously not be working so hard that they are fatigued, that it is dangerous, and that operators have a duty to ensure that that is not the case. The Seafarers’ Wages Act is obviously primarily focused on wages, and will ensure that seafarers get paid the minimum wage within UK waters. One provision of the seafarers’ charter will ensure that the operators have rosters so that seafarers are not fatigued and overworked. The Department will monitor compliance and work with the operators to ensure that seafarers are not fatigued.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: Further to the points made by the Labour Front Bencher, it is just over two years since nearly 800 P&O workers were summarily sacked and thrown off ferries. We will finally debate the Government’s utterly supine and ineffective fire-and-rehire code of practice next week, but it is just over two months since the Government claimed that they were making substantial progress on implementing the nine-point plan for seafarer protections. The Seafarers’ Wages Act still has not come into force, alongside a toothless and voluntary seafarers’ charter, which will not change how P&O operates, even if it signs up to it. We all know that in this House, so is it not time that the Government took meaningful action and got behind our seafarers?

Anthony Browne: The Seafarers’ Wages Act will come into force this summer. Unfortunately, it takes time to pass legislation, and we had to consult on it. No one wants it to come into force quicker than I. The claim that the seafarers’ charter will have no impact is completely untrue. The operators will have to abide by the terms of the charter, which will ensure that seafarers earn the minimum wage throughout their engagements, that they get overtime payments of at least 1.25 times the hourly rate, and that they have rosters that ensure that they are not fatigued and safety is not compromised. The Government will monitor the compliance of the operators with that charter.

Local Transport: West Midlands

Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to help local authorities improve local transport in the west midlands.

Mark Harper: In total, local transport authorities across the west midlands have been allocated around £5 billion to improve local transport services and infrastructure through the city region sustainable transport settlement, bus service improvement plan funding, and our recently announced local transport fund. One thing that would of course hugely help local transport in the west midlands is for voters in the combined authority to re-elect our fantastic Mayor, Andy Street.

Michael Fabricant: Hear, hear! The extension of the Birmingham to Lichfield line goes all the way to Burton and passes the National Memorial Arboretum. At the moment, the line is used only for freight, and I was told four years ago that the cost of upgrading it for passenger traffic would be only about £10 million, which is nothing in the great scheme of things. When will we see the line being completed so that people can go to the National Memorial Arboretum, which has half a million visitors a year, by rail instead of always having to use road?

Mark Harper: I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing champion of that scheme and takes every opportunity to raise it with us. It is for local authorities to promote schemes for transport in their areas. I am pleased to tell him that, following our decision to cancel the second phase of High Speed 2, we have been able to make significant funds available, so Staffordshire County Council—his local authority—will get just under £260 million from the local transport fund. I urge him to talk to the council to see if it can fund the very modest bid that he has just set out for that scheme.

Matt Western: The tram system in the west midlands is not going according to plan unfortunately, and the rail line between Moor Street, Snowhill and Marylebone—the Chiltern line, as it is known—is underperforming and has become highly unreliable. The air quality in our area, including in Warwick and Leamington, Snowhill and elsewhere, is very poor because the service is diesel-run. Other countries, such as India, have electrified their main networks. Will the Minister electrify the Chiltern route using the budget freed up from HS2?

Mark Harper: There are significant plans to electrify across the network. Another thing we can do to spend money more cost-effectively is consider where battery trains can be used in order not to electrify the very expensive parts of the network. I am also aware that Chiltern is looking at modernising its rolling stock, particularly to improve air quality. All the things that the hon. Gentleman raises are absolutely in progress. The Rail Minister will be able to say more about them in due course.

New Direct Ferry Links to Mainland Europe

Neale Hanvey: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of creating new direct ferry links to mainland Europe.

Anthony Browne: The UK ferry sector is a highly competitive commercial market. There are currently a significant number of links to Europe offering a variety  of freight and passenger routes from many locations, including five new routes since 2021. Ferry routes are developed on a commercial basis by private sector operators to provide services that meet wider passenger or freight demands. As such, the Department does not currently intend to undertake any such assessment.

Neale Hanvey: The reinstatement of a direct ferry link from the Forth estuary into Europe addresses three key objectives: an environmental objective of reducing road congestion and carbon emissions from heavy goods vehicles; improving import-export resilience; and delivering economic opportunity to Scotland. Industry agrees and ferry operators stand ready to deliver a route, but the Scottish Government lack the courage to support Project Brave. What can be done to encourage the Scottish Government to invest a modest amount of pump-prime funding to realise the economic and environmental benefits that would be felt by all across the UK?

Anthony Browne: As I said in my initial answer, the UK Government see the ferry sector as a commercial market and do not subsidise it. As the hon. Gentleman points out, however, this is a devolved matter—in Scotland, ferries are the responsibility of the Scottish Government—so he should make his protestations about that route to the SNP Government, because it is up to them to decide what to do. I totally understand that they are slightly worried; they have an undistinguished track record on ferries, with various fiascos—maybe it is because they try to get ferries that can hold motorhomes.

Rail Reform Delays: Cost

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of delays to planned rail reforms.

Rupa Huq: What estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of delays to planned rail reforms.

Huw Merriman: The recent National Audit Office report was clear that we expect to spend £400 million on rail reform up to the end of March 2024, compared with initial plans to spend £1.2 billion. The report was also clear that we are forecasting £2 billion of total savings over the current spending review period, which is 77% of our original savings target.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: It has been three years since we were told that Great British Railways would happen. In my reading of the NAO report, it says that the £1.5 billion of savings will not be met in time. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers says that another half billion could be achieved if we removed the profit motive from the railways, where a huge amount is wasted on shareholders. When will the Government progress on GBR and when will we get a date for its implementation? Is it not time for them to bite the bullet and renationalise our railways, as we have done successfully with several lines?

Huw Merriman: At the heart of rail reform is integrating track and train. I am very pleased that the Transport Committee has taken on the role of being the pre-legislative  scrutiny Committee for the draft Rail Reform Bill, and is now scrutinising that legislation. The cut-off date for evidence is next Wednesday, if the hon. Gentleman would like to put his suggestions forward. I hope that the Committee will complete its report by July; the Government will have two months to respond to the recommendations, and if we have cross-party support for an integrated rail body that brings track and train together, I hope we will be able to bring in legislation to that effect, and improve rail services for everyone.

Rupa Huq: High Speed 2, with its out-of-control costs, is compounding local misery, because it is now set to close the vital artery of Old Oak Common Lane for four to five years. We only know that because it leaked out, which shows the Government’s disregard for community and transparency. What assurances can the Minister give about funding for the Euston leg, so that the world-class interchange that we were promised does not end up being the terminus, and so that my long-suffering residents do not pay the price of Government project mismanagement by being hemmed in until 2030 because they cannot get on their one access road to the outside?

Huw Merriman: An Old Oak Common terminus provides a great opportunity for regeneration in the area. I have visited a number of times, and I am committed to working with the community to minimise impacts. One of the ways that is being done is by ensuring that the spoil is removed by conveyor, rather than by lorry. We do seek to minimise the impact; we recognise that when new rail stations are built, there is an impact.
Turning to the hon. Lady’s concern about Euston, I have met our property developer partners Lendlease. Our aim is to deliver not just a station, but the largest public sector land deal in London, which will completely regenerate the area. It will deliver offices, jobs and homes, and will also provide the funding to deliver the station, not just for HS2 but for Network Rail. We are committed to ensuring that Network North delivers that station.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Morgan: Earlier this month, the National Audit Office issued a damning report that made it clear that this Government’s refusal to bring forward long-delayed rail reforms is costing taxpayers dearly. Avanti West Coast made the amount of waste in our rail system crystal clear when it bragged about getting “free money” from Government, despite the truly shocking service that it delivers, so it should come as no surprise that yesterday, northern Mayors and council leaders unanimously called for Avanti to lose its contract due to its appalling service. The question for the Minister today is simple: will he strip Avanti of its contract—yes or no?

Huw Merriman: No, we will not. The reason is that there are issues with the west coast main line that will remain, regardless of who the operator is. It is essential to get underneath the bonnet, look at the issues and fix them, rather than looking just at what is on the side of the car. To take just one four-week period from Christmas, 65% of the delays in that period were down not to the operator but Network Rail, and they involved weather-related issues as well as trespass and, sadly, suicides, which we need to minimise.
We also have issues with restrictive contracts, and I would like change there. For example, Avanti is unique as an operator, in the sense that its drivers will not double-trip. They will do one return journey, but will not go over the same leg of rail twice. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) asks whose fault that is. That contract was agreed in 1997, so maybe we know whose fault it was. That sums up this ludicrous situation: we are talking about a contract from 1997 that was due to end in five years, in 2002, yet that contract between the union and any operator remains. Until we can make progress on restrictive contracts, we will not be able to make changes. A Government cannot break the contract—it is between the operator and the union. I welcome the steps that Mick Lynch—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not mind having an Adjournment debate or statement on this subject if we need one—I am more than happy to allow one—but we cannot have it now; I have a bit to get through. But the Minister’s answer was excellent, I am sure. I call the SNP spokesman.

Gavin Newlands: I start by thanking Alex Hynes for having done a fantastic job running Scotland’s Railway for seven years. He is departing to become the director general of rail at the Department for Transport, where he will help steer rail reform. And what a job he has! As we have heard, the National Audit Office said that rail reform was not on track. Not only are there £1.5 billion a year in lost savings, but the Department has failed to make planned savings of £4.1 billion from workforce reforms and the establishment of Great British Railways. Cuts of £4.1 billion to the transport budget were nevertheless announced by the Chancellor two weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that his Government are unable to make savings, but all too willing to make cuts?

Huw Merriman: No, I do not. I am delighted at the appointment of Alex Hynes, who will become a director general in the Department for Transport. He will put track and train together in the Department, and that departmental section will move out to Great British Railways once the legislation is put in place, so I do not agree at all. The appointment demonstrates that we are getting on with rail reform by appointing the right staff, and we have started on the legislative path.
Mr Speaker, I know I take too long at the Dispatch Box when I talk about the need to fix such contracts, but they are complicated. This session should not be about cheap soundbites; it does not work like that. It should be about getting into the detail. There are sticky contract provisions that the courts will not allow a Government or an operator to break unilaterally. I do wish this House would be a bit more intellectual in its approach to scrutiny.

Active Travel: Newcastle upon Tyne

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to support active travel in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Guy Opperman: This Government are investing more than any other in active travel. Around £15 million has been provided to Newcastle upon Tyne since 2020-21 to  deliver high-quality infrastructure. That is supported by over £2 million of funding to Transport North East to improve capability across the region. Active Travel England supports local authorities in delivering maximum value for money by ensuring that schemes comply with the relevant guidance, and councils receive tailored support from the Government.

Chi Onwurah: Walking and cycling prevent 1,500 serious long-term health conditions on Tyneside every year, according to the walking and cycling index, and they bring in £400 million in economic benefits, so it is no wonder that half of Tynesiders want to walk or wheel more, and that two fifths want to cycle more, but if they are to do that, the streets need to be made safer. What is the Minister doing, apart from undermining low traffic neighbourhoods, to make our streets safer for walking, wheeling and cycling?

Guy Opperman: With great respect to the hon. Lady, she knows full well that her council attempted to have an active travel scheme in Jesmond, and it so messed it up that it had to scrap the scheme. The LTN was scrapped, and there were 23,000 objections and a considerable waste of money. With due respect, active travel is doing a great job, and we support it, but councils have to take local communities with them.[Official Report, 25 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 14MC.] (Correction)

Rail Services

Elliot Colburn: What steps he is taking to improve rail services.

Huw Merriman: Officials and I are focusing on improving rail services in the short and long term. This week, I brought together representatives from across the rail industry for a leaders in rail session to discuss how, collectively, we can make changes to deliver a better passenger experience. Longer term, we remain committed to bringing track and train back together under Great British Railways, and to continuing to build on the £100 billion of investment since 2010.

Elliot Colburn: Carshalton and Wallington is one of the poorer parts of London for connectivity. It was promised that the ultra low emission zone would bring additional public transport investment, but instead the 455 bus has been scrapped, the Go Sutton bus has been scrapped, the 410 bus service is being reduced, and the Superloop is just an existing bus route that has been rebranded. One thing that would improve connectivity is delivering on the Croydon area remodelling scheme that National Rail and Network Rail are working on to improve connectivity in London and the south-east. What discussions is the Department having with Network Rail about moving this project forward?

Huw Merriman: I thank my hon. Friend, who is an absolute champion of that project, and he makes his point clear. Upgrades made in the Gatwick area are already delivering significant improvements to the Brighton main line, and the industry continually reviews how best to respond to changes in demand. I understand that my hon. Friend has been in discussions with the operator on the options for increasing capacity on busy weekend services between Carshalton and London Victoria, and  that Govia Thameslink Railway will shortly respond to him directly. I will continue to work with him on the enhancement project that he champions.

Lilian Greenwood: The leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, who has a nice side hustle as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), once said:
“The full delivery of HS2’s Eastern Leg is what the East Midlands needs to support and create highly skilled jobs, link communities to opportunities and decarbonise our transport network.”
As he failed to persuade the Prime Minister, who cancelled that vital investment in our region’s rail services, can the Minister tell me how we will now deliver the transformative change to our connectivity, sustainability, job creation, productivity and social mobility that HS2 promised? Filling a few potholes will not cut it.

Huw Merriman: I certainly look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) is also an excellent East Midlands Mayor, and we are devolving more powers to the east midlands to help him with that task. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) references HS2 moneys, from which more than a £1 billion will be allocated to the Mayor of the East Midlands to spend on the transport projects that he and, indeed, the hon. Lady may want. That allows us to devolve more projects to the local area, and we have been absolutely clear that all the moneys that have been saved as a result of the HS2 cancellation will be reinvested primarily in the north and the midlands.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Iain Stewart: The recent Budget contains welcome additional funding for east-west rail. What are the Minister’s intentions for that additional funding? May I suggest that he work with the Bletchley towns fund board, of which I am a member, on using the money to provide an additional eastern entrance to Bletchley station, which will improve accessibility and enhance regeneration?

Huw Merriman: I am happy to work with the Chair of the Select Committee, and I thank him for the evidence session we had on east-west rail. It was also brilliant to go to the Winslow and Calvert area to see that final link put in place. The first phase of east-west rail is ready for opening next year. Winslow station is looking absolutely superb, and I am so excited to see rail services come back there. On the second phase from Bletchley to Bedford, as he rightly says, money has been allocated from the last Budget to deliver that. I am certainly happy to meet him and the Bletchley team to see what more they can do to enhance the station for both the first and second phases.

Marsha de Cordova: Wandsworth Town and Battersea Park stations in my constituency will soon be made fully accessible, thanks to the Access for All funding. Queenstown Road has been nominated for the next round of funding, but a decision has still not been made. Can the Minister tell the House when the Department plans to announce which stations have been successful in control period 7? Will they include Queenstown Road in my Battersea constituency?

Huw Merriman: I am delighted by the progress that the hon. Lady mentions, and she is right about that third station. I will meet officials, so that I can write to her with the details. I am keen to work with her local authority to see how we can use regeneration moneys to achieve that end. As for building on the 240 Access for All step-free access stations that we have, we will make decisions shortly. We have been through 300 brilliant applications, and we are shortlisting them for delivery. I will happily write to her to ensure that she has the detail about her projects.

Alec Shelbrooke: Long before I was elected, it had been identified that in the east direction, the Leeds to Selby railway line had only a footbridge, which restricted access for so many people. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the construction taking place on the Access for All bridge in Garforth? It shows that Conservative MPs working with Conservative Governments improve rail services for all constituents.

Huw Merriman: My right hon. Friend is spot on, as always. I thank him for his work, because ultimately that project would not have got off the ground without the campaigning and partnership that he provided. It just shows that a superb MP working in the community, and the Access for All stations fund, which has delivered 240 projects and will deliver more, is a winning partnership.

Christine Jardine: Passengers in my constituency of Edinburgh West face consistently overcrowded trains from ScotRail, which was taken into public ownership by the Scottish Government in 2022; an unreliable service from Avanti; and now a staggering pilot from London North Eastern Railway, in which east coast main line prices from Waverley to King’s Cross will increase by 123% in some cases. Does the Minister agree that that is not providing a good service to the people of Edinburgh, or those anywhere else on that line? It is the wrong move when we are trying to encourage more people on to the railways.

Huw Merriman: The trial with LNER tries to give passengers greater flexibility. They can now get on a train 70 minutes either side of the one that they booked, rather than just the one fixed train. Only 11% of fares are impacted in that trial, and 55% are better value than before. Working with our partners at LNER, we are trying to flatten out demand, rather than having crowded trains followed by quieter trains. We hope to change the number of passengers on trains, which would make for a better service overall. I will happily write to the hon. Lady, because I believe that the trial has great merits. We sometimes have to be bold and try fares and ticketing reform. If we do not, we will never change the system that many criticise for being too complex.

Wendy Morton: Thanks to the support and determination of West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, we will see a train station and the return of passenger train services to Aldridge for the first time in 65 years, which is something many people thought would never happen. The service will start at Walsall, but now that we have the west midlands rail hub, will my hon. Friend agree to continue to work with me and others to secure a service to London?

Huw Merriman: Yes indeed. Thanks to our great West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, we now have the midlands rail hub, which will better connect more than 50 stations across the midlands. My right hon. Friend has championed Aldridge station for many years, and it is now being delivered. As she said, the service to Walsall will open, and it will have a car park as well as a platform service. I am committed to working with her to extend that reach even further. I congratulate her on delivering that station.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Louise Haigh.

Louise Haigh: The Minister will have seen reports this week that 3,000 jobs are at risk at Alstom rail factory in Derby. The Government told us that they were doing everything in their power to prevent those job losses, but they appear to be failing. It gets worse: this morning, I received correspondence from Hitachi Rail, warning that despite years of representation to Ministers, no solution has been found that will keep its order books full and safeguard the future of 700 staff at its factory in Newton Aycliffe. The Secretary of State has it in his power to vary contracts and commission the necessary orders. When will he do that and protect those jobs?

Huw Merriman: The Secretary of State has led for the Department on the response to Hitachi and Alstom, and their understandable concerns about orders. As I have said, we have a challenge, in that while fleet can last from 35 to 40 years, the average age of our fleet is under 17 years. We have modernised 8,000 out of our 15,500 carriages, and as a result there is a lag with the order book. We are doing everything we can to work with all four train manufacturers to bring more tenders through. Those will be for the TransPennine Express, Northern, Southeastern and, as the Secretary of State mentioned, Chiltern Railways. The work to find a resolution is done in partnership between train manufacturers, the Secretary of State and the Department, and we hope to find that resolution.

North Cotswold Line: Dualling

Harriett Baldwin: Whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of dualling the North Cotswold Line between Oxford and Worcester.

Huw Merriman: I recognise my right hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign on this scheme; she has worked alongside stakeholders including the North Cotswold Line Task Force. We continue to work with local stakeholders on their aspirations for enhancements to the line.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the team of Ministers for the £209 million that has been allocated to Worcestershire County Council from HS2 money, to help with local transport improvements. Will the Minister endorse a project in which we work with Oxfordshire County Council to find ways to redouble sections of the Oxford to Worcester line? That will result in faster, more frequent and more reliable services on the beautiful north Cotswold line.

Huw Merriman: As my right hon. Friend mentions, additional funding through Network North will help. Network Rail has been working with the taskforce and its consultants on timetable capacity and analysis, to see whether there is a smarter way to deliver additional services, with fewer infrastructure interventions. We expect that work to complete next month. I would be delighted if my right hon. Friend would join me and leaders of Worcestershire and Oxfordshire County Councils, and her neighbouring MP, to discuss this matter in the coming weeks.

Transport Connectivity: North of England Cities

Katherine Fletcher: What steps he is taking to improve transport connectivity in cities in the north of England.

Mark Harper: Network North announced £19.8 billion of investment in the north of England, including £2.5 billion for the local transport fund, and is increasing the city region sustainable transport settlements to £12.4 billion from 2027. My hon. Friend’s local authority, Lancashire County Council, will receive nearly £500 million from the local transport fund, an additional £7 million for the bus service improvement plan, and an uplift of £244.5 million for road resurfacing.

Katherine Fletcher: To truly build our northern powerhouse and contribute to economic growth, direct connections between cities such as Liverpool and Preston are really important. Does the Secretary of State agree that taking out the buffers at Ormskirk, which were put in for purely administrative reasons in the 1960s and prevent direct trains, is a great idea and that such services would be further enabled by battery technology? Does he agree that that would enhance the case for stopping the nonsense at Midge Hall station, which was closed by Beeching in the ’60s, where passenger trains stop but passengers can only peer out at the platform because they cannot get on or off?

Lindsay Hoyle: It’s true.

Mark Harper: I am sure that my hon. Friend is glad to have your endorsement for her question, Mr Speaker. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to promote and take forward those schemes and, as I said, the local transport fund in the north will mean that £2.5 billion will be available for them. I encourage her to work with stakeholders such as Lancashire County Council. I had the pleasure of discussing a number of those local schemes when I recently met its leadership on a visit to Preston.

Justin Madders: When I have been contacted by constituents excited by the news of the local transport fund, I have asked my local council officers when we can begin some of these projects, but they have been told by Department for Transport civil servants that the bulk of the money  will not come until the end of the decade. When will we have some timelines for the delivery of that money? I do not want my constituents to have their expectations raised unreasonably.

Mark Harper: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority will get £168 million. We have been clear that that money will come over a seven-year period, and we will shortly publish guidance for the local authority on how it can go about that. I hope he will be pleased to know that we will make it clear to local councils that when they put their plans together, Members of Parliament should be involved in developing schemes so that he and other hon. Members can represent their constituents and their local transport priorities.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Bill Esterson: If the Secretary of State wants to improve connectivity between our great northern cities, he might want to start by repairing the roads. The backlog of local road repairs has gone up by 16% this year alone to £16.3 billion. The Network North announcement is spread over 11 years, and its average annual contribution accounts for only a third of the £2.3 billion annual increase in the backlog. That is not all going to roads anyway, and it will go nowhere near addressing the damage done since 2016, when the Government slashed the road repair budget in half. When will the Secretary of State apologise to road users for the damage that his Government have caused and admit that they have failed to repair the potholes?

Mark Harper: What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting. We made a commitment to take the money from the cancellation of the second phase of High Speed 2 to make £8.3 billion available for local road maintenance—[Interruption.] Yes, it is over 11 years, but we made the first tranche of money available this financial year, and again next financial year. We will set out the allocations in due course. That money is available only because we made the decision to cancel the second phase of HS2. Labour cannot give a straight answer on that question, and it has not committed to spending that £8.3 billion at all. Drivers know that they will only get that investment with a Conservative Government.

Topical Questions

Chi Onwurah: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Mark Harper: We are getting on with delivering the plan for drivers, with new statutory guidance requiring local support for low-traffic neighbourhoods and strengthened guidance supporting 20 mph limits where they make sense—not in blanket measures, as in Wales. If councils do not listen, they could see their future funding affected. We are consulting on removing the profit motive from council traffic enforcement while speeding up traffic lights across the country.
As I just said, that follows our record funding increase for improving our roads, with £8.3 billion of reallocated HS2 funding—something that Opposition Members have refused to support. There is nothing wrong with driving, and the plan for drivers, which was dismissed as nonsense by the shadow Secretary of State, shows that only the Government are on the side of drivers.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for buses, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for sharing with me the list of actions he managed to elicit from  north-east bus operators following my debate on real-time bus information. However, no dates were given. This afternoon, our fantastic candidate for North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, is launching her vision for transport in the north-east. Can the Minister confirm that those actions will be fulfilled to enable her to deliver on her commitment to real-time bus information as soon as possible?

Mark Harper: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that within a week of her debate in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend the Minister for buses made sure that those meetings took place, so the actions that are necessary are under way. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to update her on the specific timeline in due course.

Anna Firth: The Rail Minister is well aware that Network Rail continues to let down disabled residents and visitors and families at Chalkwell station by repeatedly failing to install the much-needed disabled lift. This is the seventh time I have raised this issue in this place. Two years ago, I was promised that the lift would be installed this year. I have now been told it will not even be started until next year. This is a disgrace. What can the Minister do to accelerate this project and address this poor performance?

Huw Merriman: There was a retendering at Chalkwell, and Network Rail found that the existing structures would not be suitable to deliver the project as it stood. The design work is going on right now and building will happen next year. My hon. Friend is right that the delay is not acceptable. I will meet her at Chalkwell station and bring the Network Rail team along so that we can talk her through the project and its challenges and, if we can, show how we will speed it up.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Mike Kane: If the Secretary of State is not spouting conspiracy theories, he is exuding incompetence. Ashford authorities warned Parliament that 14 hours of queues were a “reasonable worst case” scenario with the implementation of the EU entry/exit system this autumn. Why has he failed to adequately prepare for the queues at our ports and airports?

Mark Harper: I just do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We are working very hard with colleagues across Government. I recently had a very good meeting with colleagues at the port of Dover, and we meet with other operators. There are very good plans in place, work is proceeding at pace, and I am confident that the EES will go very smoothly when introduced. The plans are in place and work is under way.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mark Eastwood—not here. I call Neale Hanvey.

Neale Hanvey: I do not have a topical question.

Martin Vickers: I thank the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister for their support for my campaign to deliver a direct train service  between Cleethorpes and King’s Cross. Will the Rail Minister give an update on when the service is likely to start?

Huw Merriman: I thank my hon. Friend. He has been a champion not only for Cleethorpes’ direct rail service, but for the east coast main line timetable change that was announced in the Budget. We are now going through the stages with those who use the lines to ensure we do not have any timetabling issues like those that arose in May 2018. I hope we will come to a position on this in some weeks and that I can give him more detail, but I very much hope to see those direct services to Cleethorpes. This timetable change was designed to bring in great improvements such as the one he has championed.

Patricia Gibson: Three years ago, levelling-up funding for the upgrade of the B714 in my constituency was announced. So far no funds have been forthcoming. If and when the funding is finally allocated, what support can the Secretary of State provide to help ensure that this funding is sufficient to fulfil the upgrade, given that the cost of labour and materials are now much higher than they were three years ago?

Guy Opperman: That is a matter for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I will take it up with the Department and make sure that it writes to the hon. Lady.

Andrew Jones: Residents in Harrogate and Knaresborough often face train cancellations, sometimes at very short notice, causing much frustration and inconvenience. A shortage of drivers and train crew is often the cause of the cancellations, and I have raised that with the train companies involved. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that vacancies are filled and operational training is prioritised?

Huw Merriman: That is a challenge. The shortage of crew is largely down to sickness, the level of which is about 8.5%, which is too high. We are working with the operator to ensure that it is working on that, and with the northern rail partnership, to ensure there is more resilience on that line. The training backlog needs to be cleared, working in co-operation with the unions rather than them going on strike. We should be able to ease that backlog and get a better service for my hon. Friend and his constituents.

Sarah Dyke: Last week, the Prime Minister failed to provide my constituents with any assurance about proposals for a train station in the Somerton and Langport area, but he did state that money was available to invest in local transport across the country. Will my constituents see that money? Once again, when will the Langport Transport Group hear back regarding its strategic business case, which it submitted almost two years ago?

Huw Merriman: I will happily write to the hon. Lady and the Langport Transport Group so that they have a response, if they feel that that is outstanding. The Prime Minister has committed to ensure that the Network  North money made available from the cancellation of High Speed 2 is spent where HS2 would have been delivered. That mostly includes the north and the midlands, but there will be other projects in the rest of the country through the recycling of the funding from Euston.

Priti Patel: The Secretary of State is well aware of the A12 widening scheme, and the concerns of my constituents about the route and design. They are trying to engage with the Department and National Highways, but a one-person legal challenge is putting the entire project at risk, despite the Government’s financial investment. Will the Secretary of State assure me that those communities will be consulted and engaged with despite the legal challenge, so that we can make progress?

Mark Harper: I assure my right hon. Friend that National Highways works closely with local communities when delivering major projects, and it will continue to do so on the A12 widening scheme. My Department is committed to delivering the scheme, and granted consent for it on 12 January but, as she said, it is subject to an application for judicial review. I therefore cannot add anything further, but I will continue to work with her local residents. If at any time she wants to raise issues with the scheme with me, I will be delighted to meet her.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank Ministers for facilitating discussions with the operators of the search and rescue helicopter service based in my constituency about the proposed response times. They have been fairly productive so far, and we will see what the outcome is. It is apparent already that the decisions are made solely on the basis of the number of calls and not the nature of the work undertaken. If the contract conforms to that, can we ensure that future contracts do not leave us exposed in that way?

Anthony Browne: I know how important the helicopter search and rescue services are in Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman has been a big campaigner for them, and has asked various questions and secured various debates on the matter. A review is going on about the recent incident data which will report in the summer, and we expect to publish it by the end of the year. That should include the answers to his questions. We are investing more than £1 billion in the new search and rescue service. The number of bases will go from 10 to 12 overall, and there will be no closure of bases and no change to services in Orkney and Shetland before October 2026.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my hon. Friend will know, I have serious reservations about the proposed lower Thames crossing and its ability to tackle congestion at the existing Dartford crossing. Many of the arguments were rehearsed as part of the development consent order process, which completed on 20 December. As I understand it, the Planning Inspectorate has three months from then to come up with a recommendation, which by my calculation was yesterday. Can my hon. Friend update the House on whether he has received a recommendation from the Planning Inspectorate and what the process  will be, so that I can ensure that the Department understands why many of my constituents and I do not believe that the proposed crossing is the answer to the problem?

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend is right in his estimation of the dates. A decision will be made in a matter of months, and certainly by the summer. I am very happy to sit down and have a discussion. I will be visiting the site very shortly.

Toby Perkins: People across Chesterfield were delighted when the long-standing campaign for the Staveley regeneration route was given the thumbs up by the Government, but were then sent into despair when Derbyshire County Council said it did not have the funds to provide its small contribution towards it. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether it will be delivered? What concerns does he have about the fact that the poverty of local government sometimes gets in the way of money that his Department has allocated?

Guy Opperman: I have looked into this particular scheme and met other colleagues in the House about it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in detail. I am sure we can continue with the project.

Sheryll Murray: My constituents and businesses face an additional tax to cross the River Tamar to our main city and beyond. Taking over such key pieces of infrastructure and funding them through tax measures which they already pay would create a level economic playing field and help level up my part of the country. Will the Minister at least give a contribution towards the maintenance of these facilities, so this tax does not go up again?

Guy Opperman: My hon. Friend raised this issue with the Prime Minister only yesterday; she is a fantastic campaigner on issues relating to the Tamar bridge. I accept entirely that the Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry joint committee has recently looked at the situation. An application is being considered by the Transport Secretary, and I am happy to meet her again to discuss it further.[Official Report, 26 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 16MC.] (Correction)

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that the UK used to be one of the safest countries in the world, along with Sweden, in terms of road accidents? He has campaigned with the Prime Minister to help the driver, but drivers are killing more vulnerable road users and passengers than for a very long time. Is it not time that this Government took road safety and the health and welfare of pedestrians and vulnerable road users more seriously?

Mark Harper: I will say two things. First, on Monday we announced a further £35 million for our safer roads fund. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman’s general point simply is not right. I think I am right in saying that out of 38 comparable countries, we are fifth best in the world. We have a very good road safety record and, actually, that position is maintained. We focus on road safety in everything we do, particularly for vulnerable road users. That is at the heart of all our policymaking.

Danny Kruger: The A338/A346, which runs north-south through Marlborough, is regularly choked nose to tail with heavy goods traffic. The villages of the Ogbournes and the Collingbournes are particularly affected, including Collingbourne Ducis, where a little girl was killed three years ago by a heavy goods vehicle. That traffic should really be on the A34 and the A36 to the east and the west. We have been waiting many months now for the results of the north-south connectivity review. Will the Minister tell us when that will happen, so that we can have a better system for managing heavy goods traffic through Wiltshire?

Guy Opperman: As my hon. Friend knows, I grew up in Wexcombe and I know that particular area of Collingbourne very well. I pass on my condolences to the individual family. He knows that there are powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I will write to him in detail with the powers that local authorities have to address that particular point. On the specifics of the review, that will be contained in road investment strategy 3, which will be published very shortly.

Justin Madders: I listened to the Minister’s response earlier, on why Avanti should continue to provide rail services. It sounded like he was reading from one of its press releases. The litany of excuses was very long, blaming everyone but itself. When will he listen to the leaders of the north? When will he listen to the people of the north and get rid of Avanti?

Huw Merriman: The point I was making is that if the operator changes, the contracts between operator and the unions will remain unless the unions are willing to release. There cannot be a unilateral change. The courts would not allow it. As I say, that was put in place in 1997. It was supposed to end in 2002, but continued. It is now, effectively, a part of a term and condition. A change of operator will not make any difference to that. I do listen to those in the north and I am delighted that I will be listening to the leader of ASLEF, because he has agreed to sit down with me so we can discuss those terms. I hope I can work with all Members of the House to make that happen.

Christopher Chope: My Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading tomorrow, would make it easier for motorists to make claims against local authorities for damage caused to their cars by neglect of road maintenance and by potholes. Why are the Government not supporting my Bill?

Guy Opperman: I shall be the duty Minister tomorrow, and I look forward to dealing with this matter.

Lilian Greenwood: The Government have been promising action on pavement parking for a decade, but despite a consultation in 2020, we are still no further forward. Will the Minister finally listen to disabled people, parents, children and local councils who overwhelmingly support a ban, and act to curb this dangerous problem?

Guy Opperman: That particular issue is on my desk, and we are considering it at present. I can assure the hon. Lady that the results of the consultation will be published in the summer.

Andrew Rosindell: For nearly half a century the people of Romford, and those of wider Essex and east London, have been waiting for the Gallows Corner A12/A127 junction to be reconstructed. Is it not time we had some investment for the people of Romford? It seems to go everywhere else; let us have some in the London borough of Havering, please.

Guy Opperman: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are passionately committed to improving the A12. Only recently it was the subject of litigation brought by one individual. I will happily sit down with my hon. Friend, who for many a year has been a doughty campaigner for Romford. I entirely agree with him that this needs to be addressed.

Nicholas Fletcher: Sadly, Marks & Spencer announced yesterday that it would be closing its store in Doncaster, but would be expanding its operation to a retail outlet where there is free parking. Will the Secretary of State come to Doncaster to see how poor planning in connection with pedestrianisation, cycle lanes and expensive parking is driving customers out of Doncaster and turning my city into a ghost town? Hopefully, with his help we can reverse this trend.

Guy Opperman: I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend recently, engage with him and deal with the individual points that he raised, but I would be happy to sit down and talk to him again. It seems to me that there is a way forward with buses and other forms of transport to help local residents to travel to the shopping centre that he has mentioned: surely the integrated, multimodal approach is the way ahead.

Paul Howell: Following many conversations and much engagement, the Secretary of State and the Ministers are well aware that companies in the railway rolling stock supply chain, such as Hitachi Newton Aycliffe, face significant short-term challenges. Next year we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the first passenger railway in the world, which runs past a   Hitachi factory. Can the Secretary of State update me on what he is doing to ensure that companies such as Hitachi have a long-term future in the UK to build the next generation of north-east trains?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for his constituents. He has already raised this issue with me on a number of occasions, and I am glad that he has raised it again.
I have had frequent meetings with Hitachi’s management in both the UK and Japan, and we are working very hard to deal with the situation. Hitachi’s HS2 order was confirmed on the original terms, and I am working with its representatives. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), recently published the details of the future rolling stock that is in the pipeline, and Hitachi is very competitively placed to win orders for much of that. I hope we will be able to reach a successful conclusion in the very near future.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to business questions, I have to inform the House that there is an error in the Future Business section of the Order Paper. The Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), should appear as the first item of business tomorrow. It has been corrected in the online version, and will appear correctly on tomorrow’s Order Paper.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you, and indeed the Clerks, for your speedy action in resolving this? The test of an organisation is not whether mistakes happen—they do— but how quickly they are corrected. I hope that your statement will also make clear to Members who were thinking of attending tomorrow that my Bill will be No. 1 on the Order Paper, and that they will be here to speed it on its way to the statute book.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think we have just had the plug and the advertisement.

Business of the House

Lucy Powell: To ask the Leader of the House if she will give us the forthcoming business.

Penny Mordaunt: The business for the week commencing 25 March will include:
Monday 25 March—Remaining stages of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords], followed by a motion relating to the appointment of an acting parliamentary and health service ombudsman.
Tuesday 26 March—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a motion relating to the national policy statement for national networks.
The House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 26 March and return on Monday 15 April.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 April includes:
Monday 15 April—Consideration of a Lords message to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by debate on a motion on hospice funding. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 16 April—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Wednesday 17 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 18 April—Debate on a motion on access to redress schemes, followed by debate on a motion on the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 April—Private Members’ Bills.

Lucy Powell: First, may I congratulate Vaughan Gething on his election as First Minister of Wales? Vaughan has made history as the first black leader of any European country, which is something I am sure the whole House can be proud of—we certainly are.
Following my question last week, it is good to see that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has now been timetabled, although it looks like the Government will be relying on our votes to pass their flagship Bill. I also welcome the Football Governance Bill finally being published, but when will we get its Second Reading?
This could have been our last business questions before a general election in May, but the Prime Minister bottled it. He may hope that going later increases his chances, but he has quickly found out that he has made things worse. He is being buffeted by events rather  than being in control of them, with more division, more chatter and his authority ebbing away day after day.  The many resets are not working. The public are just sick to death of Tory chaos. No wonder we are rising early for Easter.
The House of Commons guide to procedure states that the Government should reply to the recommendations in a Select Committee report within two months, so where is the Leader of the House’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report on the accountability of Secretaries of State in the Lords? It was published over two months ago, and she has repeatedly told us that she would reply to it. When will she bring forward the motion? Just this week, the Foreign Office had to be dragged to Parliament again to discuss the horrific situation in Gaza and Rafah. It is not on. She said she wanted the views of the Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee first. However, I understand that she has still not contacted it. Has she?
Let us address the elephant in the room. There is an unusual level of interest in today’s business questions, following the swirling rumours and speculation. Thousands of column inches have been written about the unfolding drama. Will she, won’t she? When will it come to a head? Yet the Leader of the House has remained tight-lipped, ducking the question, but now we have the answer. The Rwanda ping-pong will not take place until after Easter. If it is such an emergency, why has the Leader of the House yet again delayed programming this legislation? She delayed Committee stage over Christmas because of disquiet among Conservative Members, and now she has pushed back further Lords amendments until after Easter.
I know the Leader of the House will want to blame the Lords, but it is her timetable and it keeps getting stretched. Is it because the costs just keep going up and up, and the scheme is unworkable? On top of the £500 million price tag for the 300 people the Home Office intends to send to Rwanda, the National Audit Office’s damning report, published yesterday, adds to the Department’s woes. Not only is the Home Office spending £8 million a day on hotels; it has wasted tens of millions of pounds on new sites to house asylum seekers that will never be used. The truth is that if the Government were ready to implement the scheme, we would see the Bill back here next week. This is their timetable and their delay—no one else’s.
I know the Leader of the House will be quick to herald this week’s inflation figures as some kind of proof that the Government’s plan is working. [Interruption.] I knew that would get a cheer, but she might be less keen to highlight the ever rising housing costs that are not included in those figures. Rents are up 9% in the last year, and mortgage rates are still crippling homeowners. That is why, for the first time on record, living standards have fallen in this Parliament.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), claimed this morning that the cost of living crisis is over. The Government are so out of touch that it is embarrassing, so can I ask about their plans for the economy? They say they want to scrap national insurance altogether, and the Chancellor floated another two-point cut yesterday, but who is going to pay for this £46 billion unfunded promise? Will it be pensioners or the health service? People deserve to know.
The last time the Conservatives embarked on such a huge unfunded tax cut, they crashed the economy and had to get rid of their Prime Minister. I know that many Conservative Members are now actively discussing wielding  the sword and a coronation, both of which the Leader of the House is accustomed to, but I have previously heard her in these sessions pay rather fulsome, sometimes slightly over-the-top, personal tribute to the Prime Minister. Given that so many are losing faith, I thought she might want to take this opportunity to give us another gushing homage. Anything less might be misinterpreted. Last time she described him as a “signpost” but, deep down, she knows that the only direction he points towards is crushing defeat.

Penny Mordaunt: I have briefly emerged from under the hairdryer and put down my Take a Break magazine, and not only found my way to the Chamber this morning but remembered on which side I am supposed to sit, to be present and correct for business questions, which is quite a feat if media reports are to be believed.
I am buoyed by what the hon. Lady has said. After all, we have seen inflation fall to 3.4% this week. Real wages are rising, we have positive growth, household energy bills will fall by £250 a year in a couple of weeks’ time, average disposable incomes are growing and we have signed the accession treaty to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which will create a huge number of high-wage jobs. It is confirmation that the plan is working when, on Thursdays, the Opposition focus not on these real-world facts but on the Westminster rumour vortex.
I will address the hon. Lady’s points in turn. First, I join her in congratulating Vaughan Gething. I wish him well in his new post.
I am glad that the Opposition welcome the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the Football Governance Bill, and I look forward to their support and involvement. I am still in time to respond to the Procedure Committee’s report on the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to this House, on which their lordships will deliberate.
The hon. Lady brought up Rwanda, and I wish to clarify that I have no wish to blame their lordships for the delay to that Bill. I make it clear that I wish to blame Labour Lords for the delay. For all Labour’s talk of being tough on borders, it has voted against our plans 111 times, and it has voted against our measures to stop the boats 98 times. Despite its tough talk on crime, Labour has voted against our plans for tougher sentences and new police powers.
This week we have learned that, despite all the armed forces frottage coming from Labour Front Benchers, they are planning an EU defence pact at a time when all efforts should be with NATO, which has standards and clear and agreed principles about what it will do and under what circumstances, and it has been busy—Ukraine, Kosovo, Iraq, support for the African Union, Baltic air policing, Aegean maritime security, Operation Sea Guardian, a standing naval force and, of course, disaster relief. In contrast, since its creation in 2007, the EU battle group, which has no such agreed threshold for deployment, has never got out the door.
There could be no greater metaphor to illustrate the differing approaches between our two parties: Labour is all talk, including 126 minutes on ferrets last week, whereas we offer practical action. It is virtue signalling over there versus results over here. It is unfunded policies over there versus costed proposals over here. It is no plan versus a plan that is working. To borrow from the  Opposition’s new-found heroine, Margaret Thatcher: if you want something saying, wait long enough and Labour will say it. If you want something doing, vote Conservative.
Further business will be announced in the usual way.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the vice-Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Bob Blackman: As the House may be aware, the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is not able to be here because his daughter-in-law is seriously ill in hospital, and it is right that he is by her side at this time. I am sure the whole House will wish her a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.]
On behalf of the Committee, let me say that our debates in the Chamber are now full until 9 May, provided we are allocated the time by the Leader of the House. Equally, we are full in Westminster Hall until 2 May—obviously, we will have control of that time. So all those who wish to get applications in before the summer recess should do so quickly, as the Committee has been working overtime to process these applications.
The shocking rise in antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred has been well publicised, but what has not been is the anti-Hindu hatred occurring on our campuses and across our country. I have the honour of chairing the all-party group on British Hindus and it has recently published a report on that hatred, on which action is clearly required all round. So will my right hon. Friend allow time in the Chamber for a debate on hatred of British Hindus and enable us to celebrate the contribution they make to this country? Given that it is Holi on Tuesday, will she also join me in wishing all Hindus “Holi hai!”?

Penny Mordaunt: First, may I, on behalf of all of us in this place, send our good wishes to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his family at this time? I thank my hon. Friend for stepping in for him and assisting Members with an advert for future business from the Backbench Business Committee.
On the all-party group’s report on anti-Hindu hatred, I will make sure that the relevant Secretary of State has heard what my hon. Friend has said today. I know that he has been campaigning on this matter for some time and that he will have listened to what the Minister for Equalities said about it at Women and Equalities questions yesterday.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokes- person.

Deidre Brock: May I associate myself with the remarks about the new Welsh First Minister and pass on my best wishes to former First Minister Mark Drakeford?
Of course, we are grateful to the Leader of the House for making time in her hectic schedule to pop along to the House of Commons today; all that leadership plotting and scheming does not just happen by itself—she has been a busy bee. We can only pray that we are nearing the season finale of this endless Tory soap opera, but her leadership campaign has not stopped her coming here today so that she can ignore our questions in person. Every Thursday, she displays some essential qualities to be the next Tory Prime Minister. For a start, she regards questions as a bit of a nuisance, something  to be avoided at all costs. They get in the way of her important work recording all those YouTube videos about Willy Wonka, escaped monkeys or whatever. If Members do not take my word for it, they can check Hansard.
The Leader of the House was right to say last week that I had not sent her through details of my many unanswered questions—there are just so many to compile. However, I am happy to offer a few reminders now. We have had no answer on whether Baroness Michelle Mone is a paid-up member of the Tory party, as she herself claims; we have had no answer on the startling increase in child poverty in England—the Leader of the House is far too busy to deal with those distractions; and we still have no idea how much taxpayers’ money was wasted on her Government’s initial “State of the Union” report to the UK Cabinet, which was written at the height of the pandemic and was still kept firmly under wraps until we got some insights at the covid inquiry. The report is still for strictly for Tory eyes only; even now, Scots are not allowed to know the costs or decisions taken to stifle our democracy.
But with the revelation that 80% of young Scots said that they want independence, it is no surprise that the Cabinet panicked and swung into fervent Union-Jackery action. So will the Leader of the House take a moment from her busy campaign diary to answer these questions— I make no apology for asking them again: how much taxpayers’ money was spent on that “State of the Union” paper? What was the strategy the Cabinet was asked to endorse? And when can we see the paper in full? Perhaps we could have a statement from the relevant Minister, if she does not have those answers to hand.

Penny Mordaunt: Before I get to the specifics of what she raises, I have noticed a consistent hostility and unpleasantness in the hon. Lady’s questions to me. This has been going on for some time—weeks, in fact. I am getting the impression that the hon. Lady does not like me, perhaps even hates me; her followers on social media certainly do. There are patronising undertones in what she says. I believe she is saying that I am deficient in my abilities to answer her questions, perhaps because I am a woman. I feel very intimidated, upset and deeply, deeply hurt. As well as noting her questions, I have been sitting on the Front Bench filling in a hate-related report form, which my officials have kindly placed in my folder. I will have one ready for every single SNP colleague who gets to their feet. If I sent the form to the Scottish police they would be obliged to investigate, increasing the growing number of reasons why they are struggling to attend burglaries. I sincerely hope that the SNP’s new hate crime laws do not have a chilling effect on our exchanges.
I am not sure the hon. Lady has understood the purpose of business questions. The questions that she has asked should be directed to Departments, such as the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. She can ask these questions of me and I can write to those Departments for her, but she could also cut out the middleman and write to the Departments herself. I look forward to receiving her list of questions— I think it is now two months overdue. I will farm them out to the relevant Government Departments and ask them to respond to the hon. Lady.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: I wish to raise two brief things. First, the Leader of the House will soon see the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on women’s state pension age and its findings on “injustice” and associated issues. The report is about the WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who campaigned with me on these issues and saw various Secretaries of State. Will the Leader of the House say how the Government intend the House to respond to the reference to Parliament considering the recommended remedy? It is not a massive remedy, but it is an important one.
Secondly, the Leader of the House may have heard me question the Prime Minister yesterday about planning and building over prime agricultural fields. Yesterday afternoon, Arun District Council planning committee considered an application. All the members of the committee looked as though they were going to turn it down, until the planning officer said the costs of an appeal by the developer were more than the Council could afford. All the members of the committee, except for the Conservatives and one Liberal, then voted to leave it to the council planning officers to make the decision.
Can we have a debate on intimidation on costs by developers that make district and borough councils feel they have to approve something or allow something to go through that should be opposed? Will the Leader of the House join me in recommending the council calls in the proposal and, if it does not, the Secretary of State does?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the Father of the House for his questions. I know the Department for Work and Pensions will want to consider today’s announcement about WASPI women. This is a concern among Members across the House, and I am sure the Minister will want to update the House at the earliest opportunity. They will want time to consider what has been said today, but I hope that an update will be given to colleagues before recess.
On planning, the Father of the House raises a worrying concern. I am sure the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be concerned to hear that people are not shouldering the responsibilities to which they were elected. I will ensure he has heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Janet Daby: This week, I was astonished and appalled to find that Moat housing association, in my constituency, is increasing rent and maintenance service charges in affordable accommodation to an exorbitant amount. Something needs to be done about that, because the increase to rent is over 9% and the increase to the maintenance service charge is a whopping 50%. Those rises are due to start in April, so there is a level of urgency. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities looks into this case, so that residents do not fall into in-work poverty and they are not priced out of the area? The housing association must deal with them efficiently and fairly, and keep  to the formula initially given to residents to calculate  such increases.

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear about that situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency and will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State hears what she has said today. I hope also that the organisation she refers to has heard her words and can come to some accommodation with its residents.

Theresa Villiers: May we have a debate on improving access to GP appointments? In the north-central London area, the number of appointments in GP practices per month is now 680,000—50,000 up on last year—which is a huge improvement, but a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss how Pharmacy First can enable people to get treatment from their pharmacist, freeing up more GP appointments for patients with more complex conditions.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. General practices are now delivering 20% more appointments than they were pre-pandemic, and more than 33 million appointments were carried out in January of this year alone. We have also brought in, as she rightly points out, Pharmacy First. I think that this has been well received in our communities, but of course there is always more we can do to publicise these new services, which are available to everyone in our community. The next Health and Social Care questions are not until after Easter, so I will ensure that the Department has heard what she has said.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Leader of the House aware that the biggest killer of children and young people worldwide is being involved in a crash on a road? Can we have an early debate to talk about how, globally, we do something vigorously to cut this back? I have the privilege of being the chair of the Independent Council for Road Safety International. Car accidents kill so many children worldwide. They are all avoidable deaths. Can we have a debate that focuses on this?

Penny Mordaunt: I did know that, because I have heard the hon. Gentleman campaign on the issue many times, and I thank him for it. As well as improvements that we can make in the UK, the UK plays a huge role in helping other nations get better at road safety, and I thank him for highlighting that fact today. He knows how to apply for a debate.

Robin Walker: Following the introduction of the very welcome Football Governance Bill, may we have a debate in Government time on the future of rugby union and how we ensure that professional rugby in England is effectively regulated and supported? Clubs such as Worcester Warriors deserve their chance to come back into professional rugby, but with no certainty about the shape of next year’s championship and a clash between the law of administration and the Rugby Football Union’s definition of rugby creditors, it is hard for investors to plan with any certainty. A century on from when rugby was invented in the west midlands, is it not a matter of concern that there might be no top- flight professional club in the west midlands area?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. I am glad that he welcomes the Football Governance Bill. He will also know that the Government appointed  independent advisers last year to work on the future stability of rugby union. We will continue to work with the rugby authorities, including the Rugby Football Union, premiership rugby and Sport England, to support rugby in all its forms. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his particular concerns in this regard, and he knows how to apply for a debate.

Christine Jardine: The UK Government recently awarded councils in England emergency funding of £700 million, much of which was in response to the crisis facing social care. The Scottish Government received consequential funding on top of the normal block grant as a result. However, Scottish councils are still facing budget issues in this area. Yesterday, my own council in Edinburgh had to agree to close two care homes, reduce packages and cut some funding by 10%. May we have a statement from the Treasury, or perhaps the Scotland Office, on how it could be made easier for Scottish councils to apply directly for this emergency funding—[Interruption.]

Patricia Gibson: There is no staff!

Christine Jardine: Perhaps I should borrow one of the Leader of the House’s hate forms.
As I was saying, may we have a statement on how Scottish councils can apply directly when this fund is made available, rather than continue to wait for the Scottish Government to act?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady makes several very good points. The devolved Administrations continue to receive about 20% more funding per head than the UK Government spend on the same things in England, and there are many examples of the Scottish Government hanging on to those funds and not passing them on to councils or passing relief on to businesses, for example, which is very disappointing. She makes an interesting suggestion, and I will ensure that both the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have heard her words.

Geoffrey Cox: Just five years ago, the gates of Appledore shipyard closed. It was a picture of dereliction; its workforce dispersed to the four winds. But now it has experienced a glorious revival. It has several hundred employees and 45 apprentices, having been taken over by Harland & Wolff. A similar picture of prosperity and thriving is taking place in Belfast today. May we have a debate on the revival of English shipbuilding and shipbuilding in Northern Ireland, which has been presided over by this Government’s maritime shipbuilding strategy?

Penny Mordaunt: I could tell by the sounds of approval running across the whole House that were my right hon. and learned Friend to apply for a debate, it would be very well attended. This is something that I am very passionate about, and I am pleased to have worked with Appledore, and Harland & Wolff in Northern Ireland, and every shipyard around the UK, including the Scottish maritime cluster, to ensure that we can build some new ships and smooth out the fallow periods in those shipyards. This is an excellent topic for a debate, and I encourage him to apply for one.

John Martin McDonnell: Could the Leader of the House ask one of her ministerial friends to come to the House before recess to give us a report on the civil service pay negotiations? A recent independent report by Queen Mary University found that civil service pay had fallen by 1.5% every year since 2011. As the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office admitted before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Government are now becoming a minimum wage employer. That has resulted in the Public and Commercial Services Union balloting after Easter for industrial action. The union is simply asking for a pay award to match inflation and some restoration on lost pay. If we could have a ministerial statement we might be able to avert this decline in industrial relations within the civil service.

Penny Mordaunt: I will certainly ensure that the Cabinet Office has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although I do not think it was correct. In Departments that I have been in, where we have encountered low pay, or pay that is not above the national living wage, we have increased it—most notably, in my case, ensuring that no member of our armed forces or civilian who works in defence is earning less than that.

Matthew Offord: Following a fire in a council-owned property last summer, Barnet Council commissioned an independent investigation to assess whether there were any other similar properties in the borough with the same fire defects. The investigation has identified 153 council-owned properties, seven leasehold properties, and 426 freehold properties that had been sold by the council under right to buy. They are all affected by the same conditions, and 459 of them are in my constituency in the ward of Burnt Oak. They now constitute a category 1 hazard as defined by the Housing Act 2004, and the works to redress the issues are expected to cost £23,000 per house. Can a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and advise the House on what assistance the Government will provide, particularly to leaseholders who purchased their properties when those buildings were compliant with building regulations but now find themselves in an awkward and difficult financial situation?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing on behalf of his constituents on this matter. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is aware of the action that Barnet Council is taking, and continues to engage closely with it on the next steps following the fire that he refers to. DLUHC officials are seeking further information from Barnet Council regarding the nature of the risks that have been identified to understand whether its response is proportionate to the risks presented in low-rise stock. The Building Safety Regulator is also aware, keeping the situation under review and ensuring that what is being done is in line with its statutory responsibilities. He will know that unsafe cladding has been a priority for the Government, and we are investing £5.1 billion to fund the cost of remedying it, which is five times what the Opposition promised in their fire safety package at the last election.

Neale Hanvey: Queer theory extremism is having a pernicious impact on equality, rights, education, health and criminal justice.  On April fools’ day, the Scottish Government’s illiberal hate crime legislation will come into effect, exerting a chilling effect on political discourse and severely limiting fundamental freedoms in a way that is hardly imaginable. Given that an incoming Labour Administration is likely to replicate the dangerous policies being pursued by the SNP in Scotland and by Labour in Wales, will the Leader of the House bring forward an open debate on the matter?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments. He makes a good point. Of course, we have always updated legislation to ensure that particular groups are protected and, where real harm is done to individuals, action can be taken. However, we must also ensure that free speech is protected. That is vital for a functioning society, it is vital for us to make progress as a society, and it is vital for humanity. This is critical stuff, and I thank him for raising it.

Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House should know that there has been a shocking increase in crime in Greater London. In my own borough of Havering there was recently a stabbing in the Brewery shopping centre. Local people are afraid to go into the town centre, particularly in the evenings. Under Mayor Khan, we have seen a massive increase in crime. We do not get the police cover that we need. Being on the outskirts of Greater London, and traditionally a part of Essex, we are treated very differently. Will she bring forward a debate in Government time to discuss crime across Greater London, particularly in areas such as Romford and Havering, which are being fleeced? We are paying for police cover that we are not getting.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Across the country as a whole, the police have done an amazing job on roughly the same resource—if we strip out online fraud, they have halved crime, which is a huge achievement. However, there are parts of the country where that is not happening. He mentions London, but the west midlands is another such area. I know that west midlands Mayor Andy Street is very concerned about this matter. Every time we hear about the Met, the Mayor of London is nowhere to be seen. The budget has been mismanaged—there is an enormous black hole in it—and police officers in London do not feel that they are supported in doing their difficult job. The rise in violent crime in particular—knife and other crime—is shocking. There is an imminent solution so that Londoners can get a better deal: vote the current London Mayor out of office.

Marsha de Cordova: Service charges are an industrial-scale scandal, lumbering homeowners with unaffordable bills. Constituents in Battersea have raised concerns about unregulated, uncapped and exponential service charge increases, and they have also been hit by the Tory mortgage bombshell. In 14 years, the Government have failed to take action to tackle this unregulated system. Will they make a statement on the service charge scandal, and what action will they finally take?

Penny Mordaunt: I hope that the hon. Lady has raised that matter with the relevant Department. The next DLUHC questions will be on 22 April. I understand from the opening remarks of her question that it relates  to particular accommodation suppliers rather than to utility companies and other standing charges, so I encourage her to raise any particular issues with those organisations.

Philip Dunne: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to allow Shropshire MPs to point out that, contrary to disingenuous Lib Dem leaflets, it is the Conservative Government who are taking action to clean up our rivers, to help consumers buy British produce from our farmers, and to bring down the cost of living by supporting the vulnerable, raising the state pension next month by double the current rate of inflation and cutting taxes for those in work?

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to all the progress that has been made on increasing monitoring of storm overflows—which was just 7% when we came to office, and is now 100%—a huge amount of infrastructure work is being done across the country to ensure that we can reduce those storm overflows when they happen, and that sewage is not released into our seas or waterways. On 12 March, Water UK published its storm overflow action plan dash- board for all overflows in England. I encourage people to go online and look at that: they can see the work that has been done, as well as future work, and the date by which it has been done. Massive progress has been made.
I agree with the other points that my right hon. Friend has made. We are supporting farmers across the whole of the UK, particularly the Conservatives in Wales, who are fighting Labour’s plans to make farmers’ lives harder. I thank my right hon. Friend for all he is doing on all fronts; he will know how to secure a debate on all those issues if he so wishes.

Justin Madders: May I come back to the question of the ombudsman’s report on WASPI women? I understand what the Leader of the House has said about the Secretary of State’s wanting time to read the report, but he must have known for some time that it was coming, and millions of women have been waiting to hear the Government’s response. The ombudsman itself has said that
“DWP has…failed to offer any apology or explanation for its failings”.
That is why we need the Secretary of State to come before the House. The ombudsman has indicated that it has taken the extraordinary step of bringing the report to Parliament’s attention because it realises its importance and urgency, so will the Leader of the House suggest to the Secretary of State that it might be a good idea for him to come to the Chamber tomorrow and give a statement about what he intends to do about the report?

Penny Mordaunt: I hope I gave the impression in my earlier answer that I think the Minister will want to come to the Dispatch Box—this is an important matter. I hope we will be able to do that before recess. The House will not be as well attended tomorrow as it might be next week. I hope that is satisfactory for hon. Members, and I will ensure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Martin Vickers: Yet again, we have a bank closure in my constituency: Lloyds Bank is closing in the centre of Cleethorpes. We have had some  success in Barton-upon-Humber, where we have established a banking hub, but there is always a gap between the initial closure and alternative facilities being provided. Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement or a debate on how to ensure face-to-face contact between customer and provider, not only in banking but in public services?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend—who has raised this matter many times—on what he has done to secure that banking hub and ensure his constituents have access to those services. I would hope that the banking community in his area would ensure that there is no gap, and that his residents and business customers can have face-to-face access to the banking support they need. My office stands ready to assist him in trying to make that happen.

Patrick Grady: Lots of us, myself included, have constituents who are worried sick about their friends or family who are caught up in the conflict in Gaza. Can a Minister come to the House urgently for a debate or statement on the need for a more widely drawn family reunion or humanitarian visa process for people who are fleeing the violence in Israel and Gaza?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope he is in touch with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s consular services, which are working very hard with other Government Departments to ensure that anyone who needs assistance has it. If the hon. Gentleman has any difficulty in accessing those services, my office will assist.

Peter Gibson: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting my debate on hospices, scheduled for 15 April.
For many years, Darlington suffered from under-investment, but the last four years have seen £23.3 million delivered from the towns fund, £139 million invested in our train station, £35 million invested in our rail heritage quarter, £14 million invested in a vaccine library and £14 million to develop a hydrogen engine, while the Chancellor announced a further £20 million for Darlington under the long-term plan for towns. To add to that, the Darlington economic campus has delivered 750 jobs and is contributing over £80 million per year to our local economy.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is Conservatives, such as me and Ben Houchen, who are delivering for the Tees Valley? Does she share my concern about last week’s report on projects being delayed, and my suspicion that Labour councillors are putting the brakes on projects? Can we have a debate on the massive success that Tees Valley Tories have delivered for Teesside?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on hospices, which I am sure will be extremely well attended.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the progress that has been made. I congratulate him on securing so much for his local area, and he is right. I think the employment rate in Teesside is 3% higher than in comparable areas, which is a massive achievement. I do hope that his Labour council will get on with these levelling-up projects. I understand that the planning  process is bogged down, and they have not been able to get planning under way yet, which is very disappointing for his constituents. I would urge him to carry on, and ensure that these projects, for which he has secured funding, come to fruition.

Mary Glindon: World Parkinson’s Day is on 11 April, and this year’s theme—there is not one face of Parkinson’s—reflects the fact that there are 40 symptoms for this disease and every Parkinson’s journey is different. With a postcode lottery for access to the right healthcare and insufficient targeted financial support for people with the condition, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government can best support each unique Parkinson’s journey?

Penny Mordaunt: On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Lady for raising awareness of that upcoming event. I ask all hon. Members to raise awareness not only of the symptoms of the condition but of the support available, so that people have good care and money goes into research. I hope all hon. Members will take part. The hon. Lady knows how to secure a debate on the issue, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears of her interest.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have a debate in Government time about a company called Decharge, whose rural site at Greenway, Uplowman, will be getting 330,000 cubic metres of rubbish, rubble and so on? What annoys people most is that the local council, run by the Liberal Democrats, will not scrutinise this properly. They have just stuck their heads in the sand like ostriches. The chairman of the scrutiny committee should spend less time working under the leader and a little more time not shedding crocodile tears but actually doing some work. We in this House all know what a privilege it is to represent people—it is a privilege we all hold dear—but it is up to local councils to stand up for local people when lorries are going to be thundering down rural lanes and disrupting the way of life of rural people. Enough is enough: let us have a debate to sort this out.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is extremely consistent in his criticism of his local authority. I am sorry to hear about the situation, and I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up has heard his concerns. I know my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner, and if anyone can ensure that the impact of the proposal is alleviated for residents, it is he.

Matt Western: Following the catastrophic kamikaze Budget of 16 months ago, the public are extremely concerned about the promise trailed by the Government about cuts to national insurance, with a £46 billion implication. Will the Leader of the House either allow a debate or tell us now whether that will be done by increasing income tax, by further cuts to our public services or by increasing Government debt?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman will know that was not a policy announcement in the Budget. The Budget was costed, it is independently audited and there is a  clear scorecard of which the House will be aware. In stark contrast, Labour has kept a policy to spend an additional £28 billion without keeping the pledge of having that £28 billion, which is illogical. I am sure an official from the Treasury can sit down with the hon. Gentleman and talk him through all this.

Michael Ellis: All loss of life in conflict in Israel, Gaza or elsewhere is a tragedy. It is very important that the UK Government are working with the right figures, for aid purposes and many other reasons. On that point, has my right hon. Friend seen that a leading academic statistician from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania has calculated that the Hamas casualty figures are statistically impossible and obviously fraudulent? That should not be a surprise, coming from a terrorist organisation, but Government and Opposition Front Benchers seem to be relying on them. Can we have a debate in those circumstances on the accuracy of statistics used by His Majesty’s Government?

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. He should be reassured that those figures from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, are only one data point that we use to assess the scale of the conflict and its implications for civilians. We need to ensure that we have the most accurate data, and we are collecting that from satellite imagery of building damage, information from our humanitarian partners on the ground and robust data on living conditions. Those are all fed into our assessment. It is a tragedy that is unfolding, and that is why we want to see a pause in fighting to get that aid in and to get hostages out.

Andrew Bridgen: China is increasing its carbon dioxide emissions by more than the UK’s total emissions every year of this decade. China, Russia, India and others are opening new coal-fired power stations on an almost daily basis. Do they know something we do not? Independent scientists have stated that higher carbon dioxide levels would be beneficial for life on the planet through increased plant growth, so can we have a debate in Government time on the cost-benefit of net zero before trillions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are wasted, which will make the HS2 fiasco look like a warm-up act?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman will know how to secure a debate. He has just secured a debate on excess deaths, and if he follows the same procedure, I am sure he will have good luck in securing another debate.

Andrew Jones: In Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have had more than 12,000 apprenticeship starts since 2010, and this week’s announcement of changes to apprenticeship policy was positive and will help those numbers grow. What I liked particularly was that it will make it easier for SMEs to offer apprenticeships. The main message I hear from businesses is that it is challenging to fill vacancies and bring in new talent. Can we have a debate about SMEs, apprenticeships and skills policy to give them the boost they need to fill the vacancies they are creating?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend will know that on Monday, the Prime Minister set out a package of reforms to support businesses, including £60 million of new investment to enable more apprenticeships to be created. We are also slashing unnecessary regulatory burdens through our Brexit freedoms programme and saving about £150 million a year for thousands of small businesses. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing in his constituency to ensure that people are benefiting from these initiatives.

Clive Betts: The First Reading of the Football Governance Bill last week was welcome, but when will we see Second Reading? There was no mention of it in today’s business statement. We want to get the Bill through in time before the general election so that it becomes law, as it has widespread support.
One thing that was not mentioned at all was the Renters (Reform) Bill. Where has that got to? All we have read about are discussions, debates and arguments between Ministers and Tory Back Benchers over changes that might be made to the Bill. In the meantime, hundreds of people are being evicted through section 21 notices, and families and children are being made homeless. When will the Government bring back this important legislation, which has widespread cross-party support?

Penny Mordaunt: May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of us all, for all the work that he has done across the House on the Football Governance Bill, and all the stakeholder engagement that he has overseen? I have attended many of those meetings, and I know that colleagues are grateful for his efforts. These are important community assets as well as businesses. When Portsmouth faced closure, I could not say to my constituents, “Don’t worry: Southampton is just down the road; you can watch your football there.” It would not have worked. I know he is eager for the Renters (Reform) Bill to return, and I am glad that he welcomes that. He knows I will say that further business will be announced in the usual way, but I will ensure that officials in that Department have heard what he said.

Philip Hollobone: I bring good news from Kettering, where Sainsbury’s supermarket has restored free parking during the evenings in its town centre car park. It had planned to introduce charges for out-of-hours parking, but it has listened to local opinion and representations from me, Kettering Civic Society and others, and has amended its plans. That is great news for those in the close vicinity, such as the Salvation Army, the Sikh temple, popular local restaurants, and Kettering Arts Centre, which is based in St Andrew’s church. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House both praising Sainsbury’s for its social responsibility, and encouraging people to visit Kettering town centre?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful campaign. In addition to his constituency being the most dog-friendly place in the UK, as we learned last week, people can now park there for free. I join him in praising Sainsbury’s, and everyone locally who has worked to ensure that, and to ensure that Kettering town centre remains vibrant and open to visitors.

Liz Twist: If U Care Share is an amazing suicide prevention and postvention charity that supports my constituents in Blaydon and people across the north-east. Sadly, it was not successful in its bid for £10 million in suicide prevention funding, and some of its work is having to come to an end. As the north-east has the highest rate of suicide, its work is vital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I will be approaching the Minister about this, but may we have a debate in Government time on the impact of short-term funding decisions on charities working on this vital issue?

Penny Mordaunt: I am glad that the hon. Lady will take this matter up with the Minister. Where people or organisations have not been able to secure funding from a particular scheme, the Department will work with organisations, or the local authority, to improve the bid, or ensure that the organisation can work with others in the area. Such services are critical, and they also need to be sustainable. I shall ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard what the hon. Lady said.

Nickie Aiken: My constituent Nadeem Anjarwalla, a UK citizen, has been detained in Nigeria since 26 February, with no charges formally brought. His health is suffering, and obstacles have prevented his lawyers and his family from ensuring that he receives proper care. He has also just missed his son’s first birthday. As the safety and security of British nationals is a top priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will my right hon. Friend please allow a debate in Government time on how we can further enhance FCDO’s support for our citizens abroad?

Penny Mordaunt: I know my hon. Friend is working hard for this gentleman, and she is in close contact with the FCDO. As she knows, officials are in contact with his family and legal representatives, and the UK’s high commissioner to Nigeria has raised the case with Nigerian authorities. We had a Westminster Hall debate on 5 September last year about British nationals who are detained overseas, and it was well attended. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate, and if she did, I think it would be similarly well attended. As the next questions to the Foreign Office are not until 20 April, I shall ensure that the Foreign Secretary has heard what she has said.

Patricia Gibson: The ombudsman’s report on raising the state pension age has now been published. A key finding is that there has been maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, and that the UK Government should do the right thing, apologise, and come up with a mechanism for paying compensation to the women affected. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her support for all in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, and for a compensation scheme that reflects the financial loss and distress suffered by those in Ayrshire WASPI and Cunninghame WASPI, and all WASPI women across the UK?

Penny Mordaunt: Like many hon. Members from across the House, I have cases of this kind in my constituency, and have been working to support the individuals involved. I reiterate the Government’s position, which is that I am  sure the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will want to update the House at the earliest occasion. He will clearly have to read the report and reflect on it, but I know that he is keen to do so swiftly.

Craig Tracey: This week, I had the privilege of meeting the inspirational Hannah Gardner, who has incurable secondary breast cancer at the age of just 37. Recently, Hannah and thousands of other women received the devastating news that the life-extending drug Enhertu, described by oncologists as a game-changer, has been rejected by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for use by the NHS in England, despite being approved in Scotland and 45 other countries worldwide. She brought a campaign to Parliament, because it is the only realistic treatment available for her, and time is not on her side. Can we have an urgent debate on getting all parties, including the drug companies, NICE and NHS England, back to the table, and urgently approving Enhertu, so that Hannah can at least realise her modest wish of seeing her three-year-old daughter Lilah attend her new school?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for all his campaigning in this area, and for all his work with a number of all-party parliamentary groups. I also thank him for arranging for me to meet Hannah when she visited Parliament. She is an inspirational woman, and the fact that she is campaigning so hard, not just for herself but for other people, is testament to that. I also thank the Breast Cancer Now team, who also visited me and are doing tremendous work in campaigning to ensure that not just Enhertu but other life-extending drugs can be approved.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will have heard about the campaign and will want to set up meetings to discuss it. I think that about 1,000 women a year in England could benefit from the drug, and given that it is widely available and deemed to be clinically and cost-effective elsewhere, I hope that NICE will reflect on that, and that a patient access scheme might be established. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what my hon. Friend said.

Bill Esterson: In contrast to what the Leader of the House said to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), at Treasury questions on Tuesday, the Chancellor did not deny that he plans to abolish national insurance, an unfunded commitment costing £46 billion. He also did not deny that he might pay for it by increasing taxes on pensioners. As it is not the Leader of the House but the Chancellor who decides economic policy, will she arrange for the Chancellor to make a statement to the House confirming how he intends to fill the £46 billion black hole in the Government’s finances, and saying whether that will be through tax rises for pensioners, cuts to the national health service, increases in debt and borrowing, or something else?

Penny Mordaunt: I suspect that the event that the hon. Gentleman is recalling was a dream, perhaps after eating a large amount of cheese. I do not think the Chancellor would have said that. I understand that the  Labour party is trying to establish this line, but I am afraid that it is not working, because the British public understand these things; they understand national insurance contributions, and Labour clearly does not.

Jake Berry: Can we have a debate about the application of the Local Government Act 1972? Rob Huntingdon, the chief executive of Rossendale Borough Council, is seeking to use it to prevent the release of a copy of a financial impact report on the empty homes scandal presented to councillors in the council chamber on 9 August 2022, as well as seeking to prevent the release of copies of documents discussed at a closed session of the council under item D1 on 18 August 2022. That is important, because his refusal to release those documents, when added to the fact that legal action has been threatened against councillors who reveal what is in them—a gagging order by any other name—has lost the taxpayers of Rossendale and Darwen £12 million. The 1972 Act, if applicable in this case, was not put in place to stop local authorities, their officers and Labour councillors being embarrassed by their own incompetence.

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend makes his point very well. These individuals are accountable to their residents, and those facts should be exposed. I think he is right in his understanding of the 1972 Act and local authorities’ responsibilities under it, but I will make sure that officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities write to him to confirm that. I suggest that his local authority and the councillors in question reflect on the stance they are taking, and consider the rights of the people who are paying their salaries and allowances.

Lilian Greenwood: My constituents at Lark Hill rely on the retirement village’s ATM to access cash. While I am delighted that proposals for its removal have been withdrawn, residents will now face a fee. Does the right hon. Lady agree that everyone, especially older and disabled people, should be able to obtain cash safely and securely, and free of charge, in places that they can reach independently? Can we have a debate about Link and community access to cash?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the success of her campaign. There is a very clear responsibility to ensure that people have free access to cash. Many people rely on it, and it is critical for certain community groups. I will ensure that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has heard her concerns, and that officials contact her office with advice about the courses of action open to her to insist that ATMs are reasonably dispersed across her constituency.

Elliot Colburn: Crime and antisocial behaviour are a big concern across Carshalton and Wallington, particularly violent crime, burglaries and shoplifting. More police officers are on the street and crime is falling across the UK, but under Sadiq Khan’s watch in London, we have seen crime go up, the Met miss its recruitment targets by nearly 1,000 additional officers, and a complete failure to get to grips with major issues plaguing our local communities. Could we have a debate in Government time about how we can  better hold the Mayor of London to account, as he seems to not care about Carshalton and Wallington and the crime levels that it faces?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is not the first hon. Member to raise concerns about the Mayor of London’s performance on crime and, most disturbingly, increasing violent crime. My hon. Friend asks how we can hold the Mayor to account, and whether we should debate that. I would suggest another course of action: vote him out of office.

Toby Perkins: The Leader of the House could have announced today that next week, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Football Governance Bill or the Renters (Reform) Bill would be before the House, but she did not. We are told that senior Government figures have said that the reason why Conservative MPs are being sent home on a one-line Whip until the middle of April is to placate them and ease tension. This Government have simply ceased to function. Their way of stopping their most important policy is to send Tory MPs home, so that they do not have to vote for it. It is beyond a joke. Can we have a debate most urgently about when we will have the general election that this country needs to get this useless Government out of office?

Penny Mordaunt: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have heard my business statement, and he may not be aware that the Football Governance Bill has been brought forward. I remind the Opposition, who make allegations about Conservative Members phoning it in, that we want our legislation to go through. If business is collapsing, it is because the Opposition are not doing engaging in business; they have not even managed to get speakers for their own Opposition day debates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reflects on that.

Ben Everitt: May we have a debate in Government time about the obligations on local planning authorities to plan strategically for the infrastructure required to service their growth aspirations? That is particularly important to me and my constituents in Milton Keynes North since the Labour-led council announced plans for 63,000 new homes across Milton Keynes. We do not have targets in the way that we used to, but back when we did, Milton Keynes City Council was building 3,000 houses against a target of just over 1,700. It is not the Government who are making the council do that, despite what it says. Our infrastructure will suffer. We need a plan for infrastructure before expansion, in particular for doctors’ surgeries. The Cobbs Garden expansion project that I supported has mysteriously been binned by the integrated care board. We need that plan in place before we have any growth.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work to ensure that his local residents have the services that they need and that, where there is development, those needs are assessed. I know that he has been campaigning for a new GP surgery together with Conservative colleagues. He will know that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced new powers to create an infrastructure levy, which aims to generate more funding for infrastructure projects. Local planning  authorities will be required to prepare infrastructure delivery strategies as they bring forward development. As the next Levelling Up questions are not until after Easter on 22 April, I will make sure that the Department has heard his concerns about his constituency, and ask that officials get in touch to give him advice about what he can do with the ICB.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Leader of the House knows that this morning, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman did not just publicise its report but laid it before Parliament, which is very rare. It said:
“Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.”
I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not here today to provide a statement, so will the Leader of the House confirm when that will happen? Secondly and more importantly, when will this Parliament be able to debate and amend a motion on this matter?

Penny Mordaunt: Several Members have raised the exact same point this morning. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State reflects on today’s announcement, but I am sure that he will want to update the House before recess.

Damien Moore: BT Openreach is installing telegraph poles in areas of Southport where residents oppose them. There has been no extensive consultation, and its actions have resulted in a huge waste of police time. It has paid very little attention to the advice given last week, and there are huge health and safety concerns. May we have a debate so that colleagues and I can raise these issues in the House, because the telegraph poles are unwanted and are being installed unsafely?

Penny Mordaunt: I hear my hon. Friend’s request for a debate, but I understand that his actions have already had an impact on Openreach. The Minister responsible raised my hon. Friend’s concerns with the chief executive of Openreach yesterday, who will investigate. I understand that he will also attend a roundtable with the Minister and other MPs on Monday to discuss this ongoing topic. I stand ready to assist my hon. Friend in whatever way I can to get this resolved, but he is doing everything he can and has already secured many things that will get this resolved.

Keir Mather: It is getting on for two months since the debate on mining communities was set to take place on 1 February, when it was displaced by the reforming of the Northern Ireland Executive. My constituent Mr Anthony Rock is being treated appalling by the DWP regarding compensation for industrial illness, despite the best efforts of the National Union of Mineworkers. His health is getting worse, and it is not about the money but about dignity for Mr Rock, and recognition of his years of service  in the British coal industry. The Minister and other coalfield MPs need to hear this story, so can the Leader of the House advise me when we will find time for this  crucial debate?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He will know, as I have stated it before, that while reorganising the scheduling of such debates is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee, we will be giving additional time to ensure that it happens. I was particularly keen to mention that specific debate, as I know Members from across the House would be very interested in taking part. I will also ensure that we flag his concerns with regard to his constituent with the Department for Work and Pensions, as those departmental questions have just happened.

Roger Gale: Finally, and thanking him for his patience, I call Peter Aldous.

Peter Aldous: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude on the point that, I think, four other Members have made, including the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. We have had the ombudsman’s report this morning. It makes grim reading for the DWP in relation to its maladministration over many years. Its findings on recommendations for compensation may disappoint many women, but the main issue coming out of the report is the need to lay the report before Parliament due to the low confidence that the ombudsman has in the Government coming up with a quick solution.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for her assurance that a DWP Minister will make a statement as soon as possible. May I urge her to convey to the Department the need to go much, much further much more quickly to put in place a mechanism, working with Parliament, to ensure that this injustice, which has gone on for many years, is remedied as quickly as possible?

Penny Mordaunt: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will raise this matter with the Department. Indeed, I will be doing so on behalf of all Members who have spoken about it this morning. I thank him for all the work he has done with the all-party parliamentary group and on this issue specifically. As I said in my previous answers, I am sure the Secretary of State will want to update the House at the earliest occasion.

Roger Gale: Order. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their presence throughout what has been a very lengthy session.

Point of Order

Gavin Newlands: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the test cases reviewed in the report, which was just mentioned in the last question, is my constituent who has fought for a decade for the Department for Work and Pensions to right these wrongs. She felt a huge sense of responsibility in acting on behalf of the millions of WASPI women. In my office, we have been with her every step of the way.
The DWP has treated my constituent and the WASPI women with contempt, obfuscation and delay. Shamefully, it is now failing to acknowledge these findings, accept the ombudsman’s report and apologise for the life-changing impact its maladministration has had on these women. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you or the Speaker’s Office had confirmation from the Government on the precise timing of a statement on the report? Secondly, given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman said that the DWP’s refusal to accept its findings is unacceptable and that it has had to ask Parliament to intervene—clearly, it has no confidence in the Department —how do we as Members demonstrate our lack of confidence in the Department and its Secretary of State?

Roger Gale: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of the thrust of his question. First, the Chair has had no notice of an imminent statement. However, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the Leader of the House in answer to, I think, five questions on the subject this morning indicate very clearly that a statement will be made as soon as possible. I am sure the whole House will welcome that reassurance.

Bill Presented

Climate and Nature Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alex Sobel, supported by Caroline Lucas, Ed Davey, Colum Eastwood, Brendan O’Hara, Olivia Blake, Sir Peter Bottomley, Daisy Cooper, Clive Lewis, Stephen Farry, Alison Thewliss and Derek Thomas, presented a Bill to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets; to give the Secretary of State a duty to implement a strategy to achieve those targets; to establish a Climate and Nature Assembly to advise the Secretary of State in creating that strategy; to give duties to the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee regarding the strategy and targets; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May, and to be printed (Bill 192).

Backbench Business

Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment

Roger Gale: Before we start the debate, I should inform the House that while the Chair has no power to impose a time limit on opening speeches, Mr Speaker has made it plain that he expects those speeches to be kept to a maximum—not a minimum —of 15 minutes. In order to assist the opening speakers, I will now put the clock on at 15 minutes.

Jeremy Quin: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Defence Committee, Ready for War?, HC 26, the Eighth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Improving Defence Inventory Management, HC 66, and the Nineteenth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, MoD Equipment Plan 2023-33, HC 451.
It is a pleasure to open this debate. There is only one way to start it, and it is how we should start every single debate on defence: with a clear-eyed appreciation of the threat to our country, our allies and our interests. Russia, which the integrated review identified and its refresh reaffirmed as our greatest adversary, has mobilised a war economy, spending nearly 40% of its budget on defence and security. Such is Russia’s rush to rearm that, notwithstanding all international sanctions, the International Monetary Fund has upgraded its economic forecast for the country from 1.1% to 2.6%, which makes it the fastest-growing economy in Europe.
Not only has Russia, through its renewed and devastating attack on Ukraine, shown its willingness to disregard every aspect of decency and international law, but its war machine is feeding an imbalance in munitions in Ukraine which we in the west are shamefully not doing enough to counter. The reality of war is that, ultimately, production lines tell. Notwithstanding the £2.5 billion that the UK is spending on military support this year, we need collectively to be doing more, not just in supporting Ukraine but in transforming our own supply lines. We need to enhance our own readiness to help deter Russia from a wider conflagration.
While the threat from Russia is grave, it is not the only threat we face. In east Asia, from which the Defence Committee has just returned, China has doubled its official spending on defence to $232 billion a year, although the real figure is much, much higher. North Korea is nuclear-armed, dangerous, unpredictable, and in closer alignment than for many years with Moscow. Iran and its proxies are destabilising the middle east, and, via the Houthis, pose a constant threat to shipping through the Red sea. In that regard, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are actively engaged as we speak.
Following our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the willingness of the west to face up to these challenges is being studied by the global south—countries that are vulnerable to destabilisation and worse on the part of our adversaries. Any sense of the west’s being distracted, or unwilling or unable to rise to the challenge, risks encouraging the increasing number of autocratic  states to act in contravention of international law.  The sabre-rattling in Venezuela over resource-rich  provinces of Guyana, a Commonwealth country, is just one recent example.
Has the risk picture changed for the worse in the last few years? Clearly it has. Have we fully risen to that challenge? We have not. Those of us who are old enough to recall the joy of the Berlin wall coming down will also recall that we had, in that decade, been investing more than 5% of GDP in defence—well over twice our current commitment. In 1989, there was a justifiable rationale for reductions in defence spending, but what goes down to match a decreasing threat must assuredly go back up to meet an increasing threat, and that is where we stand today.
In the Defence Committee report, we are robust not only about the professionalism of the armed forces, but about their ability to rise to any challenge. However, they are being run hot continuously, and that has a direct impact on their ability to train for, recruit and retain for, and be equipped to face the toughest challenge imaginable: a full-scale prolonged conflict, alongside our allies, with a peer adversary. That is just one of many challenges that our armed forces are designed to meet, but it is the most significant—the challenge above all others that we seek to deter.
I welcome the extensive engagement of our armed forces in this year’s NATO exercise, Steadfast Defender, but the days when that could be a routine exercise conducted by forces dedicated solely to the preparedness to face the Russian threat are long gone. Our forces’ sheer range of commitments, from global engagements to domestic MACAs—military aid to civil authorities—maintain constant pressure. The impacts are simple: recruitment and retention that is not up to the task; a hollowing out of munition stockpiles and our means to replenish them; and an inability to prepare and train for the worst-case scenario at the intensity required to bolster our allies, and with the confidence to deter adversaries. Our report highlights the urgent need for change.
To enable us to be fully prepared for peer-on- peer warfighting, something must give, be it the scale  of operations and engagements or the size of national investment in defence. There is no doubt in my mind about the course that needs to be taken. The global operations conducted by our armed forces have a critical supporting role in our efforts to deter and prevent expansionism by our adversaries. What the UK needs is not a diminution of our ambition, but an increase in our investment.
In saying that, I am acutely aware of the regular charge that additional UK investment in defence is wasteful if the Ministry of Defence does not get its house in order on procurement. The Public Accounts Committee has set out in its report the difficulties faced by the MOD in meeting its equipment plan objectives. Reports over the years, not least from the Defence Sub-Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), have highlighted where the MOD needs to do better on procurement. I have no doubt that we will hear from my right hon. Friend and others about some of the core weaknesses that these reports have revealed.

Mark Francois: The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes. Could he explain to the House that one of the things that the Committee thought about very carefully was how candid we should be about the weaknesses in our armed forces? After much careful deliberation, we did not include anything in our “Ready for War?” report that we had reason to believe our potential adversaries did not already know.

Jeremy Quin: I said we would hear from my right hon. Friend, and indeed we shall. He is absolutely right. We are incredibly careful as a Committee to keep to the right the side of the line. There are a lot of facts in our report that make for very, very unpleasant reading. I do not have time to list them all today, with the clock whirring as it is, but I commend the report. It goes through some of the problems we face in great detail. As my right hon. Friend says, they will be well known to our adversaries. If we do not front up to those problems, we will be fooling no one but ourselves.
Obviously, I have a personal interest in this matter, but I believe that over the past five years we have seen a real determination from the MOD to get better, and there are structural changes that will embed improvement. The defence and security industrial strategy moved the MOD away from competition by default and towards viewing our defence sector as a critical strategic asset. That has proved a timely intervention, placing more emphasis on building sovereign capacity and greater reassurance of our supply chains. DSIS has marked an improvement in the relationship with industry. Companies large and small are more engaged than they have ever been in the early thought processes around capability requirements and specifications. There is better investment in senior responsible owners to exercise control and authority over projects.
When the Department and industry work together—for example, on Poland’s defence expansion or on novel technologies for Ukraine—it is a formidable combination. Baking exports and industrial co-operation into procurement at the earliest stage works for industry and for the UK. Above all, achieving minimum deployable platforms early and allowing for spiral development, if properly invested against, will generate not only routinely upgraded state-of-the-art platforms, but industrial partners that are able to retain and invest in their workforce and their research and development. It means going beyond feast and famine, and towards long-term co-development.
I believe that the Minister’s recently announced reforms are excellent. They institutionalise reforms that really will improve our procurement, but for them to work as they deserve, there needs to be cultural change. Uniformed SROs need to recognise the profoundly different skillset that applies to procurement. They need to be encouraged to seek commercial and legal advice early in order to escalate problems. Above all, they need to be willing to recognise that when a project will not work, they should take the learning and call it a day. If we are focused, as we must be, on cutting-edge solutions, we must recognise that some will not work. For any commercial entity, that is not a sign of failure; it is a recognition that, in a portfolio, some risks will be taken that do not succeed.
In Defence Equipment & Support there are many good people doing a difficult and demanding job, but I believe it is absolutely possible, as part of the current reforms, to instil and reward greater entrepreneurialism and productivity. DE&S has the pay freedoms to do so. With cultural change and proper investment, the reforms will move us from peacetime lethargy, influenced by staccato funding, closer to the urgency and realism that the threats demand.
It is clear that no one on either side of the House should think that we can get to where we need to be against the current threat simply by being a bit better at procurement. As our report makes clear, significant  improvements are required in everything from stockpiles to housing simply to retain and maintain the size of our current force structure, let alone increase it, as we should.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has mentioned accommodation, on which I focused after succeeding him as Minister for Defence Procurement. Does he agree that accommodation is as much a part of operational capability as hardware in the battlefield?

Jeremy Quin: I support my right hon. Friend’s point. We had “fix on failure” for too long, although it has changed in recent years. More investment is being put into our housing, but it is needed because we have a crisis in retention and recruitment. As the report sets out in vivid and very scary detail, we are losing far more experienced personnel than we are able to recruit. Housing is part of the offer to our brilliant defence personnel that we need to get right.
While addressing all the issues I have mentioned, we must also increase our fundamental defence production capability. We underwrote commercial military expansion in the 1930s, and we should be prepared to do the same. It is absolutely clear that, although better buying will of course help, it should be alongside, not instead of, sustained, effective and increased investment.
Investment horizons on priority projects must stretch well beyond annual commitments to allow proper planning. We will make savings if the services do not gamble all their chips on the delivery of a perfect platform when it is “their turn,” and they will not do that if they know funding will be there for upgrades. Industry will invest alongside that, will work with small and medium-sized enterprises and will train the workforce we need if it knows that we are marching together for the long term rather than being marched over the edge of a cliff at the end of every order.
The need for increased defence investment would be true in any circumstances when faced by the threats we face. It is all the more vital when the United States’ commitment to Europe is being questioned. Since 2015, this Government have shown themselves to be ready to make difficult decisions, have shown leadership in the early days on Ukraine and have increased investment. In my personal opinion, the Government must now set out their timetable for reaching and sustaining 2.5%.
Although decisions should be taken “capability up” rather than “numbers down”, it is also my view that we are unlikely to be able to meet and deter expanding threats in the longer term for less than 3%, which remains a low level of annual insurance compared with the relatively recent past. However, the sooner the Government commit and invest, the lower the ultimate price likely to fall on this country. By doing so, we might be able to help save all of Europe by our example. Failure to invest could result in a very high price indeed.

Meg Hillier: I really welcome this debate, in which five former Defence Ministers are speaking. That is probably a record—certainly in recent years. I very much thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for laying out the global challenges this country faces and some of the capability concerns. Given the expertise in the Chamber, I know that we will hear more about that.
I stand here as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which sometimes feels a bit like the second Defence Committee because of the amount of time we spend examining the vast expenditure that this country makes on defence. Taxpayers give this money to the Government trusting that it will be spent well, but sadly all too often we see that it is not spent as well as it should be. We see money going in but we do not see the capability coming out that we require. The PAC examines that defence spending and the delivery; our job is to look at the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of how taxpayers’ money is spent by Government. As I say, the Ministry of Defence too often falls short on that.
The Committee has huge concerns about the MOD’s ability to deliver projects on time and to budget. This report is only one of our latest on the subject. Just because we have war paint on ships or something is very important, interesting and exciting technology to support our men and women on the frontline does not mean that it should not be treated like any other major project in Government and be managed well and properly. There is no point in having something perfect but late if our frontline personnel need it. As our report highlights, recent global events, which I will not go into, as the Chair of the Defence Committee has outlined them, throw into sharp focus why it is so vital that we deliver on time and that we have the capability, including industrial capability, to ramp up when something, such as munitions, for example, are used apace.
The PAC has examined the annual equipment plan from the MOD for more than 12 years. We have done that throughout the time I have been a member of the Committee, for the past nine years of which I have had the privilege of being its Chair. The defence equipment plan is the 10-year programme for the capability that the MOD says it requires and it lays out how that will be funded, and where the challenges and gaps in funding are. All bar last year’s plan were deemed unaffordable, but the PAC took the view that even in the year when the plan from the MOD came out as affordable, it was based on assumptions that were not realistic, and we did not believe it was fully affordable.
In simple terms, affordability is about the gap between the capability the plan lays out and the money available. As the plan covers 10 years, there have been times when Ministers, including some of the former Ministers present and perhaps even the current Minister, might have come up with reasons for that. They say, “Over 10 years, it is fine. We’ll juggle it a bit. We will balance a bit. We’ll get efficiency savings here and there.” We have seen those arguments and excuses far too often, and the efficiencies do not arrive or issues arise and defence programmes are put off and delayed. By delaying them we see a reprofiling of the costs, but no real reduction in them, and we see those chickens coming home to roost.
This year, the gap between the capability required and what is affordable is £16.9 billion—so it is nearly £17 billion over the 10-year period. We can then add in what the Army would deliver. It is perhaps worth my explaining that for some odd reason—the PAC has taken a strong view on this and even the permanent secretary at the MOD has acknowledged that there was an anomaly—when the Commands and the MOD put in their costs for the programmes, most of them put in the full costs of all the capability required, but the Army puts in only the costs of what it could afford. If we add in the   capability that the Army actually requires, we are adding a further £12 billion to that nearly £17 billion, thus making the gap even bigger. There has been a clear deterioration in affordability. It is fair to say that £10 billion of that is because of inflationary costs—we partly know the reasons for that, but I am not going to go into them now—and about £2 billion is to do with foreign exchange costs. Again, the PAC examines those regularly with the MOD and the Treasury, but however we hedge it there will be some challenge on foreign exchange because of the nature of some of our defence procurement.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that that has been made worse by the MOD’s tendency to purchase off-the-shelf solutions from the United States in dollars, which is now accounting for a huge amount of the defence budget? As she says, even with hedging, this is a deadweight around the defence budget.

Meg Hillier: My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and we could almost have a whole debate about that. We do not have time to go into the full detail today, but I will touch on our defence industrial strategy. That is what a lot of this comes down to; if we are buying things off the shelf, it can sometimes be more cost-effective, but we need to be careful and cautious, because the longer those projects are for, the greater the risk of foreign exchange challenges. There is also sometimes a risk to our own sovereign capability and the longevity of some of our defence industries.
We recognise that, with our allies, we work in an international world on this. So there is no straightforward answer, but defence industrial strategy is an area that not only the MOD but the whole of Government should be looking at, as it is vital. Both the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor talk about growing the economy, and our defence industries are based in areas where, if we could up the skills and jobs available, it could provide a major boost to the economy. So there are a lot of opportunities there.
The MOD has not credibly demonstrated how it will manage its funding to deliver the military capabilities the Government want. Our latest report says that they need to get “firmer control of defence procurement” because of this very large deficit in respect of the capability requirements needed. The budget has increased, and I am sure the Minister will stand up to tell us how much extra money is going into defence, but this is about not just the money, but how it is managed. The budget has increased by £46.3 billion over the next 10-year period compared with what was set out in last year’s equipment plan. As I said, the PAC has warned that the deficit is even bigger than expected, so that extra budget will be taken up by the deficit if it is not managed down. Part of the reason for that deficit is inflation, but another major impact on it is the costs of the Defence Nuclear Organisation, which is responsible for the vital nuclear deterrent. Those costs have increased by £38.2 billion since last year’s plan.
One of our Committee’s other concerns is that the MOD has been putting off making decisions about cancelling or reprofiling programmes. Reprofiling is not always a good thing, but sometimes we have to trim according to what is necessary. If the MOD cannot afford the plan, it should take a hard decision, but it has optimistically assumed that the plan would be affordable  if the Government fulfilled their long-term aspiration to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence each year, despite there being no guarantee that that will happen. Of course, in an election year there is not even a guarantee as to which party will be in government to consider that. We know, and the Defence Committee will know even more than the PAC, how much the MOD is increasingly reliant on the UK’s allies to protect our national interests. That means that we also have to play our part by making sure that we are delivering that.
For all the time that I have served on the PAC— 13 years this year—the MOD has been led by optimism bias, and it is now pressing on based on not optimism but the sniff of optimism, as there is so little left in that approach that will deliver. We must call that out and call a spade a spade, by saying that the MOD can deliver only what is affordable. So either the money goes in or the MOD trims what it is trying to do, because the approach of trying to do everything all at once and not being able to afford it is just not going to work.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I have not cast my eye over the report she is speaking about. She talks about the Government or the MOD trimming projects. The lessons of George Osborne slashing the number of Type 45s in half have had a huge impact on naval capability, and of course we have more than 530 Ajax tanks to come. When we say that we must make savings, are we talking about a false economy? In the long run, it is far better to increase the GDP spend than to slash projects and totally undermine how the defence programme was originally laid out.

Meg Hillier: I am tempted by the right hon. Gentleman to go into all sorts of long discussion about how the PAC looks at these issues. Resetting projects and programmes can certainly be problematic, and sometimes stopping something part way through can be expensive. Equally, however, altering the requirements part way through can add on costs. When I talk to the commands or the centre, one problem I find is that people sometimes want to gold-plate what they are procuring, and we sometimes need to look at doing those things in a different way. Brutally, let me say that the current situation is not affordable, which means we must make hard decisions about whether something is stopped or no longer procured, or more money is made available. As I have said, and as the PAC repeats ad infinitum, if more money is made available, we need better project management.
The MOD is also saying very clearly that it will not make any decisions until the next spending review. As everybody in the Chamber knows, that is supposed to be in November, but a general election is looming. A spending review is usually six months after the first Budget of a new Government, so we could be floating on the fumes of the current spending settlement until the summer of next year. In certain cases, we will still be pouring good money after bad; the Ministry of Defence needs to tighten up on that, because it cannot live on hope alone.
I touched on industry in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Industry needs a consistent and certain supply of business  to keep the supply chain going, both for resilience and to ensure there is proper investment in the necessary infrastructure. We have seen some of our private sector industries leave equipment and buildings to crumble because they have not had continuity of supply. Some blame lies with them, not just with the Ministry of Defence, but consistency of supply is vital and getting that right provides a potential boon to the economy.
The Committee looks at procurement a lot. For the last decade or more, we have been saying that senior responsible owners need to be in place for far longer. They need to be where their expertise is needed for the right period of time, and then be moved on for the next phase of the project. We need to reward people who stay in those jobs, rather than expecting civil servants or military attachés to roll over on a three-year basis, thinking they just need to keep things ticking over. They need proper ownership and proper reward when they get things right. The MOD is beginning to move in the right direction on senior responsible owners’ skills and longevity, but it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to where it needs to be.
I touched on funding timeframes. The Treasury needs to seriously consider properly controlled longer-term budgets, as it is beginning to do in certain areas with the defence equipment plan. That does not mean giving carte blanche to the MOD; those budgets need to be tightly controlled, as the Public Accounts Committee has made clear. However, controlled longer-term budgets are vital.
Finally, the Public Accounts Committee has access to many areas of Government and all areas of spending, if we choose to look at them. I pay tribute to my fellow Committee members who have never leaked a single piece of information, of whatever sensitivity, in the last nine years. However, the Committee looks at certain issues through opaque glass and it is now time to have full transparency. I want as much information as possible to be in the public domain, but the mechanisms of open, public committees are not always appropriate for certain sensitive areas, including defence.
In our latest report, the Committee recommended that there needs to be a new mechanism and approach that allows Parliament to properly examine such issues in the right, secure context. That might be along the lines of the Intelligence and Security Committee, although we would certainly not be looking at information in that area and not in exactly the same way, because the Public Accounts Committee needs to be more fleet of foot on certain day-to-day spending issues. It is time we had transparency so the British taxpayer knows that every tax pound that is spent, whether on defence or on sensitive matters in other Departments, is being seen and scrutinised by senior parliamentarians who know what they are doing. It is an early thought of the Committee, but important to raise. We need full transparency so that officials and Ministers who are spending taxpayer money in this area of vast expense are properly scrutinised on their work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. Although there are not that many hon. Members present in the Chamber, it is immediately clear that there is a considerable amount of defence expertise present. That means we  are likely to have a well-informed debate, which is not always the case. That being so, I will impose a 13-minute limit on speeches. That should enable all Members to have their say, and allow time for a full and proper response from the Front Benches. I hope that will satisfy all Members. It will be a formal time limit, which means the usual injury rules will apply. If Members take interventions, time will be added.

Mark Francois: May I begin by saying to the Minister for Defence Procurement, for whom I have great regard and who is trying to reform our broken procurement system, that everything I say in the next few minutes is not personally aimed at him? To quote “The Godfather”:
“It’s not personal…It’s strictly business.”
At his speech at Lancaster House on 15 January, the new Defence Secretary now famously said that we are moving
“from a post-war to a pre-war world”.
His words clearly resonated, both nationally and internationally. For example, when I was on a visit to Washington recently, those words were played back to us by Pentagon officials. Shortly after, in an unclassified letter to all Conservative MPs, the Defence Secretary stressed the need for industrial improvements and to rearm, in terms reminiscent of the 1930s.
However, let us consider what that actually means. The head of the MOD, a senior Cabinet Minister, has said, in effect, that we are now likely to go to war. Although he did not specifically state who with—be it Russia, China, Iran or someone else—that one statement, which I fear may turn out to be true if we do not rapidly improve our conventional deterrence, has incredibly serious implications for our entire defence and security posture. The much-vaunted integrated review has now been completely overtaken by events. In a world with increasing Iranian-inspired violence in the middle east, sulphurous threats over Taiwan emanating from Beijing and now the state-sponsored murder of Alexei Navalny, even the most naive liberals surely have to concede that the Defence Secretary might just be right. The integrated review, and its 2023 refresh, are completely lacking in any great sense of urgency in response.
Similarly, the MOD defence Command Paper, which was meant to dovetail into the integrated review, also lacked a sense of urgency, even to the point of retiring a number of key frontline systems, such as radar planes and tactical transport aircraft, in favour of new equipment, arriving much later in this decade. Many analysts expected that to change post Ukraine, but no major equipment decisions were altered, despite Putin’s barbaric invasion in February 2023—something that some members of the Defence Committee effectively predicted in a debate in this House some six weeks before the invasion began.

Meg Hillier: The right hon. Gentleman is in the unique position of being a member of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee. Does he share my view that it is a bit like groundhog day when hear the words “defence” and “review” in whichever order? I do not know how many such reviews we have had in the last few years, yet we never see the step change necessary to ensure we will deliver the capability our country needs.

Mark Francois: The Chair of the PAC is entirely right, although in the MOD context, if it is groundhog day, “groundhog” sounds like a vehicle that has slipped to the right.
More recently, after a detailed inquiry, the Defence Committee, on which I serve, published a damning report on 4 February 2024, entitled simply “Ready for War?”. I have served on the Committee since 2017 and this is one of the punchiest reports we have ever produced. In answer to the question in the title, the all-party Committee, which includes six former MOD Ministers, concluded:
“Despite the United Kingdom spending approximately £50 billion a year on defence (plus more for Ukraine) the UK’s Armed Forces require sustained ongoing investment to be able to fight a sustained, high-intensity war, alongside our allies, against a peer adversary. ”
In plainer English, and as the subsequent detail in the report starkly points out, despite a considerable outlay of taxpayer’s cash, we could not fight a sustained war with Putin’s Russia for more than a couple of months before we ran out of ammunition and fighting equipment, not least as we have very few tanks, ships or combat aircraft in reserve. The full report can be found online.
Given that it takes years to build a modern warship—a totally ridiculous 11 years in the case of the new Type 26 frigate—and four years to build a Typhoon fighter, if we had to fight what the strategists sometimes describe as a “come as you are war”, one with little further warning, we would have to rely on whatever equipment we had to hand or could rapidly remobilise. We simply do not have enough war-winning kit to win as it is. As the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the 10-year equipment plan illustrates starkly, the difference between what the MOD aspires to buy and the funding it is likely to have available is £17 billion. However, it is worse because the three services account for the plan on a different basis. Without going into all the technicalities, an apples and apples comparison across the three services shows that the gap is £29 billion. Even beyond gaps in capability of our kit, our greatest weakness is now the lack of skilled personnel to operate and maintain the equipment that we do have. Without them—and far too many of them are leaving, as the Chair of the Defence Committee said—even multi-billion dollar aircraft systems simply remain in the hangar.
One perfect example of how dysfunctional the MOD has now become in relation to people is the saga of Capita—or, forgive me, “Crapita”, as it is now affectionally known to the Defence Committee. It has totally messed up the recruitment system for the British Army. A few years ago, its share price topped £4; today, it is barely 13 pence. Everyone in Defence knows that the outsourced contract has been a disaster, yet absolutely no one in the upper echelons of the Department has the moral courage to sack the company. The Defence Secretary recently described the situation in The Times as “ludicrous”. He is absolutely right. Indeed, no doubt he has made a note of his own comments on his own famous spreadsheet, but still nothing actually happens. Capita limps on as the Army bleeds out—with, in some parts of the Army, three soldiers now leaving for every one that Capita somehow, painfully, manages to recruit. If we think we are going to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin in this manner, we are living on a different planet, in a parallel universe, in a fantasy dimension.
Given that we now spend the thick end of £50 billion a year on defence, the British taxpaying public are quite entitled to ask why so little of our defence capability works properly. Why are some of the Army’s fighting vehicles 60 years old? Why do we have hardly any battle tanks that actually work? Why do we have hardly any submarines that are now regularly put to sea? Why do we have aircraft carriers that perennially break down whenever they try to leave port? Bluntly, it is because we now have a Ministry of Defence that has become in recent years a gigantic, sclerotic bureaucracy; constantly hidebound by needless, self-generated red tape; obsessed with process rather than outcomes; in which some senior civil servants are now more interested in wokery than weaponry, endlessly ripped off by some of their own major contractors, such as Boeing, to name but one; and in which key elements of our fighting equipment are so old—and the procurement system for replacing them so broken—that we now cannot fight a major war with Russia for more than a few weeks, as it well knows.
Moreover, as the Red Book clearly shows in tables 2.1 and 2.2, we are cutting the core UK defence budget next year by £2.5 billion and playing “smoke and mirrors” with the donations to Ukraine and with addressing an overspend on the nuclear enterprise from the Treasury reserve in order to pretend otherwise. This act of what the Russians call “maskirovka”, or strategic deception, is wholly unworthy of a Conservative Government. If Members happen to believe, as I do, that the role of our armed forces is determinedly to save lives by convincing any potential aggressor that, were they to attack us, we would defeat them, then we are palpably failing.
This is not an intellectual parlour game. Ultimately, this is about whether our grandchildren are going to grow up in someone else’s re-education camp, but we might not know that if we walked into the current MOD. We can try to blame the military, for instance, for so frequently over-specifying new military equipment, such as Ajax, that it enters service many years late, but in the end the responsibility lies with the politicians who, theoretically at least, are supposed to be in charge.
The Romans had a famous saying about military matters: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—he who desires peace should prepare for war. Given that the Secretary of State, the man who runs the Department, has told us that we are in a pre-war world, surely we had better start preparing for it, if we are to have any chance whatsoever of preventing it, and we should now do that in earnest, before it is too late.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he is coming towards the end of his speech. Would he care to remark on a couple of slightly more optimistic features of deterrence, because deterrence of conventional forces depends on far more than an equal balance of equipment, even though, as he says, we are nowhere near achieving that? It also depends on our allies and others who will fight in the same cause. Does he not accept that it is not just enough to take our defence spending up to 3% or more, such as the 5% we regularly spent through the cold war, but essential to ensure that our American allies remain totally involved in the deterrence process and that the Ukrainians succeed  in fending off Russia, because if they succeed we can contain Russia in the future, as we successfully did in the past?

Mark Francois: I agree with every word my right hon. Friend, the former eminent Chairman of the Defence Committee, just said. My one caveat is that the MOD’s excuse for these capability gaps is that we can rely on allies to fight with us. But they will be relying on us, and if we are unable to support them or they are on wartime tasks elsewhere, things might go horribly wrong.
I say all of this not just as someone who served proudly as a Territorial Army infantry officer in my local Royal Anglian Regiment during the cold war; not just as someone who is still very proud to carry the late Queen’s commission; not just as a former veterans and then Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, albeit almost a decade ago; but most of all, as I said at Prime Minister’s questions last week, as the devoted son of a D-day veteran. Stoker 1st Class Reginald Francois died when I was 14 years of age. He told me one night of the carnage—his word—that he witnessed that day, albeit from offshore, on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay. In the afternoon, they were opposite Omaha beach.
Let me quote Shakespeare’s famous phrase:
“This story shall the good man teach his son.”
My father was a good man. The story that he told me was of a country that eventually, reluctantly, had to go to war against the evil of Nazi tyranny because for years its politicians had been so parsimonious—he actually said “tight”—and so naive that when Nazism emerged, we completely failed to deter it. That is the lesson of the 1930s, but it was also his lesson to me.
My father made me take a solemn vow that, as his son, I would never take living in a free country for granted, because, as he said, too many good men had died to achieve it. Two years after we had that conversation, he was dead. That is why I am here this afternoon. That is why I came into politics in the first place. As a wartime serviceman, my father was a great admirer of Winston Churchill, our greatest ever Prime Minister, who led this country through a war of national survival and then lost a general election for his trouble. When I walked into the Chamber earlier this afternoon, I could still see the damage caused when the Chamber was bombed in 1941. Churchill insisted that it not be repaired, lest we forget, and he was right.
In summary, I may not be my father’s contemporary, that famously courageous MP, Leo Amery, so I cannot claim to “speak for England” on this matter, but I was elected to speak for the people of Rayleigh and Wickford, and so, on their behalf, I issue this stark warning today. The skies are darkening. Brutal dictators with powerful weapons at their disposal are on the rise. The democracies are on the backfoot rather than the front. History tells us time and again, and indeed ad nauseam, that the appeasement of dictators—be they called Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Putin—does not work. We should be increasing the defence budget to at least 3% of GDP—what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) used to call “at least three to keep us free”—not cutting it, as we now are, and pretending that we are not. The first duty of Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, and we forget that at our peril. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

John Spellar: The debate encompasses a wide range of issues. My colleague on the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), outlined some of them. I will focus on one aspect: industrial capacity, by which I mean not only the big, well-known manufacturing plants, or the well-known prime companies that we often rightly hear from in the national media, but their extended supply chains and material suppliers, and equally their often under-remarked-on workforce—not just the engineers and craftsmen but the crucial production workers, who are vital for ramping up production and our ability to surge in a crisis. We have experienced difficulties with that in response to the war in Ukraine.
Many in that supply chain also sell to the civilian market, including the public sector. Many of the specialist engineering companies in the midlands supply Formula 1, civil aviation and premium vehicles, as well as defence. They need orders from defence and from public sector bodies to maintain their workload and employment, and to train the workforce of the future. That is why—this will be a theme throughout my contribution—a whole-of-Government approach is necessary. Underlying that is the question of whether we are in a new environment or just an oscillation. Basically, is there a war going on? The people of Ukraine certainly know that. The Baltic nations, Poland, Finland and Sweden know that. It does not mean that war is inevitable, but it certainly means that it is now possible, and failure to respond will actually make it more likely.
One has to question whether the commentariat and the British establishment understand that. The Government need to make clear their view on the state of international relations. Do they regard the invasion of Ukraine by Russia as an interlude—a very bloody one—after which the situation will return to something approximating normal, albeit not the status quo ante, or has there in fact been a tectonic shift, and are we at best back in the cold war, although with a hot war going on in Ukraine and the danger of extension elsewhere along the new iron curtain that is descending over Europe? That is clearly understood not just by the politicians and the defence establishment, but by the publics in Sweden and Finland, with a dramatic shift in opinion, after centuries of neutrality, and their historic decision to join NATO and become very active participants.
Even so, across NATO, there is not that sense of urgency, or a clear realisation of the crisis. Only this week, the boss of the Scandinavian ammunition company Nammo was in the press pointing out that societies were still in peacetime mode. He gave the example of its factory in Norway, which needs additional electricity supply capacity in order to expand. A new site for TikTok has been created nearby, but the factory cannot get enough electricity. He rightly pointed out that the defence of western Europe is slightly more important than cat videos on TikTok. He contrasted that with the Defence Production Act in the United States, which was the Truman-era response to the Korean war, based on the Franklin D. Roosevelt War Powers Act. It gives extensive powers to the US Government, and they are using them. That is why they are responding to the weaknesses in procurement and ramping up production capacity, including through several Government-owned  and Government-constructed, company-operated plants. Will the Minister indicate whether our Government are looking at that as a possible mechanism?
Do the Government recognise the fragility of the supply situation? Recent crises such as covid, and the situation in the Red sea and Ukraine, have already shown how vulnerable our supply chains are, and many firms and customers are finding that the so-called cheapest option can end up being very expensive. To be fair, that applies not just to the United Kingdom; all around the world, companies are finding that extended supply lines and single points of failure at home or abroad can have very damaging consequences. The discussion has shifted, and now there is much talk about reshoring, near-shoring and friend-shoring. I am not sure how much of that has penetrated the calcified mindset of our Treasury and the senior civil service, but I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.
This is not a Eurocentric issue; we must also be aware of the increasing tension in the Gulf, particularly arising from the destabilising impact of Iran and its proxies across the middle east and north Africa, as well as the increasingly aggressive attitude of China, which is why deepening relations through AUKUS and with Japan is so necessary and welcome. I hope that the Minister can report on the success this week at the AUKMIN—Australia-UK ministerial consultations—and AUKUS conferences taking place in Australia. We fully understand why the Secretary of State is there today, rather than responding to this debate.
We have to be clear that these problems did not come out of a clear blue sky. They were shown to us some years ago. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford identified the evidence that we had from an American general. When the Americans conducted an exercise with the British Army about an outbreak of conflict in Europe, we basically ran out of munitions in about 10 days, but nothing was done about it. Even once the conflict started in Ukraine in February 2022, and it soon became clear that artillery would play a major role in it, the Ministry of Defence did not place an order for new shells until July 2023. The Minister cannot complain that I have not given him notice of this issue; I have raised it several times in previous debates, and have never had a satisfactory answer about that delay. We cannot afford that degree of indecision going forward. It is not as though we have not had shell crises before; we had one in 1915, which brought down the Government. I am afraid that there does not seem to be much collective institutional memory in the civil service today.

Mark Francois: We are giving £2.5 billion in the next financial year to Ukraine, and it is money well spent, but we cannot spend the same pound twice, so does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we rightly give that money to Ukraine, we cannot then spend it on Army salaries, British shells or submarine maintenance? In other words, it is for the Ukrainians; it is not part of the UK defence budget, is it?

John Spellar: Well, it is unfortunately scored as being in the UK defence budget, and in the claim that we are keeping up defence expenditure; that masks an actual cut in British domestic defence spending. It is absolutely right that we supply the Ukrainians—I think we should be supplying more—as they are on the frontline and are  carrying the fight. We—not just us, but the rest of Europe, the United States and the free world—should be backing them up with matériel. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that trying to slip that into the defence budget, rather than it being part of our national commitment, is the wrong way of handling it.
Even with new production, I am still not clear—perhaps the Minister will clarify this—on what is happening with the increasing capacity for propellants and explosives. Across the western world, very few points—just two or three factories—are capable of making them, and they are stretched to capacity. I understand that difficulty, but I want to know what is being done to create new capacity. I know that the United States is doing it, but what are we doing here and in Europe? In that context, I commend the article from Iain Martin in The Daily Telegraph, in which he says that, whatever our differences with other European countries over the EU and Brexit, we should certainly be working much more closely on maintaining and creating new defence capacity—not just military but industrial as well.
Although I accept that the Government and this House must take the lead, others must follow. If we are, as I have been arguing, in a new defence environment, the City of London and the finance houses must accept their responsibilities. They must make it clear that not only is investment in defence a good investment as it leads part of British manufacturing, but it is their patriotic duty and part of the defence of the free world. However, getting that message across and changing the mindset needs a whole-of-Government approach, not just the involvement of the Ministry of Defence and those of us in the House who are interested in the subject.
As I said to union representatives in the evidence session, the unions have tens of thousands of members in the defence and aerospace sector. They should not stand idly by while mobs try to shut down their workplaces. Only this week, we had demonstrations outside GE Aerospace in Cheltenham, which was, for over a century, the Smiths factory. There have also been protests outside the Leonardo site in Edinburgh, which I presume is the old Ferranti site. I hope that unions are backing not just their members’ employment but the national interest, and will look at whether any funding is going to bodies that are organising to shut those places.
I fully acknowledge the issues facing our uniformed forces, as well as their expertise and commitment. I am pleased that others will highlight their contribution. I regret that the Government have taken their commitment for granted. In any conflict, supply and resupply are crucial. Conflicts are won not just on the battlefield, but—sometimes even more so—in our factories and those of our allies. That is why we need a rethink, a reset and a recovery of lost ground. Will the Government take up that challenge?

Jesse Norman: We face a world of complexity and threat unparalleled in our recent modern experience. Scanning across Europe, south-east Asia and the middle east, we see that this is a world where there are threats emerging, or already in place, to which we as a nation, with our allies, must attend and deal with. We do so in an environment where the most powerful—or almost most  powerful—mechanisms affecting our lives are working every day: the effect of technology and changes in price. Their effect is to bring forward new ways of making war that might have been unimaginable two years ago. They have the effect of bringing new actors—private actors, not merely states—into the picture; that might have been unimaginable just a few years ago. We see evolution rapidly occurring in the nature of the threat that we must deal with.
The report produced by the Select Committee, which I was proud to join earlier this year, is in my view not just an exemplary piece of work, but testimony to the Committee’s quality. I speak as someone who sat for five years on the Treasury Committee —no slouch when it comes to quality and expertise—and then chaired a Select Committee myself. I have been deeply impressed by the quality of thought, the experience and the attention that my colleagues and Clerks have brought to these matters. The report is a very good example of that.
Crucially, the report brings out some of the foundational assumptions that have not yet been adequately tested in our defence thinking. It is above all about our readiness; not just our operational and warfighting readiness, but our strategic readiness and our capacity to think ahead to where the escalating, multiplying and developing threat might be in future, and how we can, in a full spirit of resilience, prepare for it. I congratulate the Committee on its work. I have been proud to be associated with it, and congratulate those who made previous contributions to this excellent debate.
We know, because there is ample historical evidence, that democracies can fight wars with an intensity and endurance that is not available to autocracies. However, it has historically taken democratic states time to get moving—time to move public opinion; time to bring the people, the demos, with the politicians and with Government, in order to bring the full resources of a nation to bear. In the modern world, we may not have time to do that; we must start to prepare now—and not just our warfighting capability. It has rightly been highlighted today that we are moving from a post-war to a pre-war world. In that sense, we must give the need for resolution and resilience the profile that it requires among people across the country.
It is not the first time that these matters have occurred, as the House will well know. In the 18th century—a time when this country was more or less continuously at war, with relatively small intervals of peace—there was a period when there was tremendous concern about the effects of commercial society and peace. There was a worry that martial virtue might yield to “luxury” and “softness”, as it was put. We must be aware of that problem; we see it everywhere. I myself was in eastern Europe before 1989. I have experienced what it is like to live under a communist country and in the shadow of Russia. It is nothing that anyone in this House should feel the tiniest appetite to even glimpse, let alone endure or invite our citizens or allies to contemplate. We must be absolutely resolute in thinking about how we can ensure a gradual process—without the loss of our democratic values, and given our constraints—to ready our people for strategic decisions in due course. Everyone in this House prays that it will never happen, but we must prepare ourselves for the possibility that there could be some development for which we are, as yet, inadequately prepared. We must address that as a matter of money, organisation and, of course, talent.
We must fill the strategic gap in our thinking—a gap that is only being accelerated by the rapid growth in artificial intelligence, which threatens to upend not just many of the resources and systems that we use in this country, but much of the strategic thinking that we are bringing to the whole question of what it is to be at war. If Members doubt that, they should look at the work that is being done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) rightly mentioned maskirovka: the use of AI in mimicry, spoofing and false-flag operations. That is something that we as a country are just beginning to get our head around, even at an advanced defence and security level.
We have an escalating series of security challenges. The solution to them is not more state, as such, but a much more intelligent deployment of the relationship between states and markets; between the public and the private; and between the secret, the grey and the not-so-secret. We have to bring all those resources with us if we are going to be successful, and we have to be more emphatic about the desperate need for competence. That means competence not just in our civil service and our military capability, and of course in the agencies that work alongside them, but in this House. Our political parties have a responsibility to develop, recruit, enable, understand, enfranchise and promote talent, and I put it to the House that no political party is doing that adequately at the moment. We should have chief talent officers in political parties—people actively thinking about where we can find competence, capability, knowledge and experience, and how we can deploy those things in this great Chamber in which we have the honour to sit.
The deep issue here, if I may say so, is not just that we have a civil service that is—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned—preoccupied with process in a way that is understandable in peace but, I am afraid, inadequate to the preparation for war. It is not just that there is a preoccupation with process over outcome, when outcome is the only thing that matters when we are trying to deliver a capability; it is that we as a nation have not yet made the intellectual, moral, emotional and spiritual shift towards deeply preparing for a pre-war situation. If I may make a party political point for a second, the Government have done a splendid job in starting to take control of a very difficult fiscal situation, which they inherited and was built up through crisis over the past few years, but to what end?
As was said famously by a man nearly 250 years ago in Bristol, we come to this House not as a “congress of ambassadors”, but as
“a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest”.
That interest cannot be sectionalised, including within Government. I say that as a former Financial Secretary; my Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), is also a former Financial Secretary, and we do not say that the budget for defence should go up because we want to be profligate, nor that there should be anything less than proper constraint and proper scrutiny of the long-term spending of this country, but it must go up. That must be shared across both parties; it must be something that even the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind and account for in this Chamber as if they were preparing for war, so that we can all know that they have come to terms with the compromises, difficulties and challenges that we all face today.

Kevan Jones: I begin by joining the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), in thanking the men and women of our armed forces—we should never forget their dedication. It is often said that the first duty of government is to keep the nation safe and protect its citizens, but we have a Conservative party that has admitted that it has “hollowed out” defence. We have had a return to war in Europe and growing threats around the world, as has been explained, and we now need a clear-eyed vision of what we need to do in defence. It is about deterrence—there has been a lot of talk about warfighting, but the success of defence is in deterring action from happening.
We need to recognise how we have got to where we are today. I hear all the calls from Conservative Members for increases in defence expenditure. I do not question those individuals’ commitment or dedication, because I know that many of them are very committed individuals who believe in defence, as I do. However, I find it a little ironic that between 2010 and 2016, the defence budget in this country was cut by 18%. Even with the increase, the defence budget is still 7% lower than it was in 2010, and the Budget on 6 March included a cut in the defence budget. I hear all the stirring cries for increasing the defence budget, but we did not get into this situation by accident.
In 2010, we had a Conservative-led coalition Government who tried to scare the public by saying that they inherited a £36 billion black hole in the defence budget. That was absolute nonsense. The figure came from a 2009 NAO report on the equipment budget that said that there was a £6 billion black hole in that budget, and that if we had flat cash for the next 10 years, the figure would be £30 billion. The spin doctors added another £6 billion to that figure, and it became the myth that was reiterated.
That myth masked what the Government were really up to, which was slashing the defence budget over that period, and we are still seeing the consequences of those decisions. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), whom I respect, talked about a 1930s moment. I agree that we are in a 1930s moment—the similarities are there. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Conservative Government cut defence expenditure, including Winston Churchill, who admitted it in later life.

Mark Francois: He was Chancellor.

Kevan Jones: As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he cut defence expenditure, so there are parallels there, but not the ones that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is referring to.

John Spellar: Another key feature of that era was the Treasury’s 10-year rule of basing defence expenditure on the assumption that there would not be a war in Europe within the next 10 years, which rather unravelled at the end of the 1930s.

Kevan Jones: It did. If we look back, the common theme —it is a matter of fact, whether people like it or not—is that we have defence cuts under Conservative Governments, and when Labour is in power we maintain or increase the defence budget.

Mark Francois: I hope this does not come across as nit-picking—it is important. The 10-year rule, which was a rolling 10 years, was not just a Treasury policy: it was the policy of the entire Government, and it was not rescinded by the incoming Labour Government in the 1920s. It was the policy of the whole Government, and it was only rescinded in the mid-1930s, a few years after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. It is important to get that right.

Kevan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has got that on the record. I am not going to get into a history lesson about the 10-year rule—I think the history books tell the story—but we have seen what happened from 2010 onwards.
We have had a cut of 40,000 personnel in our armed forces, and it is not just about numbers; it is about experience. Individuals were made compulsorily redundant. If I had made people compulsorily redundant when I was a Defence Minister, The Sun and the right-wing press in this country would have been shouting from the rooftops, but they did absolutely nothing, and we lost experience. One in five of our ships was removed, as were more than 200 aircraft, and the satisfaction rating among our armed forces personnel is now below 50%. We have had a system over the past few years that has wasted money, as we have chronicled in our report, and we actually now have the £30 billion black hole in our equipment budget that was predicted in 2009, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), has referred to.
This is not about whether the defence budget is 2%, 3% or 5%. It is about looking at how we have got into this situation, and how we change it—how we face the challenges that confront us today. Whichever party is in government after the next election will have to face those challenges, but we have to get away from British exceptionalism. We have great ambitions to be a global power, like some kind of imperial power. I am sorry, but we are not. We can continue that myth ad infinitum, but unless we link the resource to the ambition, it is not going to work.
For the past few years, we have had the nonsense slogan of “global Britain”—some pre-imperialist view of what we are doing around the world. I am sorry, but it is absolute nonsense. We have to look at what we can do to protect our own defence. The idea that we are going to be a major player in anything that happens in the south-east of the South China sea—that having two offshore patrol vessels based in Singapore is going to deter the Chinese—is nonsense. If anything happens there, frankly, any commitment that we could give is like a gnat on the backside of an elephant compared with what the Americans would be able to do. We have to be realistic about that.
What do we need to do? We need to look at what we must deliver as part of our NATO commitments. We also need to get away from the myth—and it is a myth, in our Army in particular—that we will deliver a force of divisional strength under any NATO commitment. We cannot do it now, we have not been able to do it for quite a few years, and we just need to be realistic about that. We need to sit down with NATO and look at what we can contribute to European defence. Clearly, the nuclear deterrent is a key part of that. However, do we, for example, need a full spectrum Army? No, we do not.  We need to plug into our NATO allies, and ask what we can deliver well as part of the overall defence against the threat coming not only from Russia in Europe, but increasingly from China in the north Atlantic as we get global warming and the opening of sea lanes.
There is an idea that we will be sending aircraft carriers around the world. No, we will not. We need to commit them to NATO, and that means some very tough decisions. It also means that we need a mindset change. We have to be honest with the public about this, and say that we will not be able to do everything. There are then some hard decisions to be taken about the armed forces. For example, we should say to the Army, “We’re not going to be doing that, but we are going to do this very well. We will dovetail that into NATO commitments, and actually make a real difference.” There are big decisions that will have to be taken by any Government, whoever gets in after the next election.
Please let us get away from the myth—and it is a myth—that we will be going around the world and intervening in every single conflict. For example, look at the air strikes on the Houthis in the last few weeks. We have contributed four aircraft because we want to be seen to be alongside the Americans, but I would ask: what is the strategy for doing that? There is no strategy. Okay, we have bombed the Houthis, but is that going to resolve the situation? No, it is not. Does it show that Britain is a global power? No, it does not. Frankly, we do not have the resources, unless someone will say that the defence budget is going to be 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% or 7%, but no Government are going to commit to that.
I say to Conservative Members and the commentariat in our right-wing press that they should just be honest with the British people about what we can do. We can and do have a valuable role to play in NATO and we have willing partners that want to work with us. I am certainly very excited about Sweden and Finland joining, although we need to make sure that we actually get those commitments. As I say, some hard decisions have to be taken and there are some home truths for our armed forces. As the Chair of the PAC said, there are capabilities that we will just have to get out of. We will have to say, “We’re not going to do that, but we’re going to do this and we’re going to do it well, and we are going to contribute,” and that will maximise our influence.
On China, people ask: do we just forget about the South China sea? No, we do not. We use our strong diplomacy, and our great and fantastic abilities with technology and other things in those areas, but it is not about deploying people or equipment out there. Frankly, the sooner we get the reality of such a wake-up call, the better. I will always call, and I have always called, for increased defence expenditure, but I will not do so if it is just to try to plug a vision that will never ever be achieved. We need to make sure that we spend that money well.
That leads on to the point about skills raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). We need to see any defence expenditure as potential growth in our economy. However, we are not doing that if we are giving contracts to the United States, or to Spain for fleet solid support ships, and not thinking about growing our defence industries here. I accept  that there has to be international collaboration, but we  must have give and take. The idea that the French would ever give an FSS ship contract to a Spanish shipyard, frankly, is just—

John Spellar: Laughable.

Kevan Jones: It is laughable, as my right hon. Friend says. We need to make sure that we actually invest, because this is about skills and about ensuring that we have the workforce.
We have seen the effects when we just pull out of such work. We cannot look at our skills base as a tap, which we turn on when we want it and turn off again when we do not. We cannot do so, because we have seen the costs of that—for example, on the Astute programme. To be political, it was again the Conservative Government who stopped building submarines, so we had a gap in skills, and it has taken all the effort recently to rebuild that skills base and ensure we get it back. We must have such a skills base continually, and that has to be done by working with our European allies. Whether the zealots of Brexit and the anti-Europeans like it or not, if we are talking about things such as stockpiles, we do have to work with allies and make sure that we can deliver them through the supply chain we have.

Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: No. I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
I now come on to what will happen after the next general election. Is there going to be a massive increase in defence expenditure whoever wins the election? No, there is not. We know that, so let us just tell the public that. What we need to ensure is that we get the maximum effect from what we do spend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who speaks for the Labour party on defence, will—if he gets the job—have a big task facing him if we are successful at the next general election. My heart sinks a little when he talks about reviews. Yes, we need to have a review, but we also need action straightaway.
It is now critical that we take some key decisions, and there are very difficult discussions to be had, not just with the British people about where Britain is realistically in the world today, but with some of the members of the armed forces and the chiefs, in saying, “We’re going to do this, and we’re going to do it well, and we’re going to make sure we are safe as a nation.” Is that defeatism or saying that Britain is finished? No, it is not. I think we have a proud future, and we have some great military and diplomatic assets, including in the way we do things. However, we should not delude ourselves that we will be going back to some pre-Suez or pre-second world war global Britain as an imperialist power. We are just not going to be able to do that, and I think we have to be honest with the British people.
There also now has to be speed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said about munition shelling, we cannot have a situation in which it takes a year for munition stocks to be replaced. The tempo has to be increased, so action will have to be taken very quickly. I am all in favour of a review and a study of policy—in the last few years in this country we have lacked any thought-out policy work or strategy, and we need that—but we also need action.
It is a daunting task that will face any Government after the next general election, but let us be proud of the members of our armed forces, who work on our behalf to keep us secure. There is an impression that defence is somehow a Conservative issue; I am sorry, but it is not a  Conservative issue. A lot of the men and women in our armed forces come from the poorest and most deprived communities in our country, but they are proud to serve their country, and I think we should be proud of them. We should give them the clear commitment that they have our backing, but be clear with them that we must be realistic about the tasks we ask them to do to keep  us safe.

Danny Kruger: It is an honour to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for what I agree are exceptionally good reports. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on that point.
This is possibly the most important speech I will give as an MP, and I do so on behalf of the military in my constituency of Devizes. I have the honour to represent the garrison towns of Tidworth, Bulford, Larkhill and others. I went up on Salisbury plain recently with Colonel Matt Palmer, the commander of the Army in the south-west, who showed me with the sweep of his arm where 20,000 of our armed forces live and work. As my right hon. Friend said, we are not here just as ambassadors for our constituencies; I am going to speak in my role as an MP about the essential imperative of national security.
I will, however, first make another local point. In the Devizes constituency is the site of the battle of Roundway Down, which was the most successful battle in the royalist cause in the English civil war, in that it gave the south-west to the King for the next two years. I mention the battle of Roundway Down, because it was that defeat of the parliamentary forces that spurred the reform of the parliamentary army. That led to the creation of the new model army, which of course went on to win the civil war, and transformed the way in which the military in this country and across Europe was organised for decades to come. The lesson of the new model army and the reforms that happened in short order in the 1640s was not about a major new doctrine of warfighting, but about the imperative of having a well equipped, well trained, well led army that is innovative, agile, professional and with high morale. We need that again.
I mention that because it is on my mind, having yesterday had the pleasure of attending a session at the Royal United Services Institute organised by the New Bletchley foundation led by Brigadier Nigel Hall. It is issuing a report with input from a galaxy of distinguished former generals and other experts. Sir Richard Barrons was on the panel, as were Professor Michael Clark and others. They put forward a short report that Members can find online on a proposal for a reconfigured Army. The point the panel made—it has been made repeatedly in this debate—is simple: we have to be ready to fight the war we wish to deter. That means really ready, not just ready on paper or ready plausibly in a way that might convince someone on a doorstep that we are making sufficient investment in the Army. We need to know that we are ready, and crucially our enemy needs to know that. I echo the points made by the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that our enemies know what our capabilities are. They will not be deceived by spin from a press officer in Whitehall. It is essential that we are ready to fight the war.
The sad fact—there is no point sugar-coating it, given the point I have just made—is that we are not ready to fight the war we wish to deter. The reports make that plain. I have great respect for Ministers on the Front Bench, and I recognise the genuine investments going into parts of our armed forces, which are extremely welcome in my constituency, but the fact is, as General Barrons said yesterday,
“we are back in a moment of existential risk in an era of great power confrontation”.
Laying aside the fantasies of the post-cold war world of our being somehow beyond war and in an era of minor peacekeeping operations, we are back in a sense in the mid-20th century, with the crucial difference of the high-tech domains with which we are now coming to terms. Unlike the mid-20th century, we have hollowed out our Army over the past 30 years, and I echo the powerful points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made drawing a comparison with the 1930s—that “low dishonest decade”, as it has famously been called. We now have three decades where we have suffered disinvestment.
While I acknowledge the major funding commitments being made to the armed forces, I highlight that they are insufficient at the moment. I recognise that abstract percentages of GDP are in a sense secondary to the real question of how we spend money and where it goes, but those figures are important, and the basic fact is that we need to be spending more than 2% or 2.5%, and at least 3%. If we consider the worst coming to the worst, and the US withdrawing its NATO commitments, as we hear threatened from time to time, across the NATO alliance we would all be needing to reach at least 4% just to maintain NATO’s current strength.

Alec Shelbrooke: A recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that I attended assessed that it would need to be an increase of 5% of GDP on top of current spend, were the Americans to pull out.

Danny Kruger: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. These figures seem extraordinarily large to us, but if we consider the worst coming to the worst, and our being in a hot war in Europe, we would be back to spending significantly more. It was 50% of GDP in world war two, so the figures we are talking about are essentially marginal in light of the potential.
The point has been made—it cannot be made enough—that before defence gets more money, it needs to spend its own money better. I echo the points made about the importance of procurement reform. The Public Accounts Committee report is damning. There is a £17 billion deficit between the MOD’s budget and its official capability requirements, which is perhaps an underestimate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, given how these numbers are calculated. I am concerned about that.
To make a quick point in passing, I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts when he winds up about the nuclear budget. There is real concern about how Trident’s replacement will be accounted for. There is a danger that if that is just part of general MOD capital expenditure, it could end up cannibalising conventional weapons. It is important, given the long-standing tradition, that we keep nuclear separate from conventional weapons budgets.

Meg Hillier: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he agree that it would be good to have tighter scrutiny of that spending, which might mean a new system set up so that we can look at sensitive matters?

Danny Kruger: I defer to those on the Front Bench on what transparency is appropriate, but I recognise the point made in the hon. Lady’s Committee’s report and I think in the Defence Committee report about the difficulty of getting the information that the Committees need to do their work. I recognise that nuclear is identified as a separate line in the budget and is protected in theory, but I am concerned about what might be a marginal increase in this enormous budget. It is around a quarter of our total defence spending. If that increases even marginally and the shortfall has to be made up from our conventional defence budget, that entails a significant reduction in that conventional spending, which is so important at the present time.

Mark Francois: According to the MOD’s own figures in the latest supplementary estimates, the amount we are spending on what it calls the defence nuclear enterprise is now gusting towards 20%. Everything my hon. Friend says about the risk of that gradually eating everything else is entirely correct.

Danny Kruger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. If we managed to get the genuine increase in defence spending that is needed, the question then arises of how to spend that and where the money should go. I say this not just on behalf of the 20,000 or so defence personnel in Wiltshire, but because it is the right thing to do: we need to put people first. I recognise that there has been a significant step change in the doctrine of defence policy in recent years towards the recognition that an army is fundamentally about its people, and I respect that. The fact is, probably because of the many decades of disinvestment, that we have problems of low morale, low pay, often poor housing and a shoestring training budget, all of which contribute to the recruitment crisis we have in the armed forces that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
The PAC report makes clear that we are losing people faster than we can recruit them, and that is entirely unacceptable. We have to improve recruitment. The Public Accounts Committee heard that for every five people recruited to the armed services, eight are leaving. That is a national security crisis. It is not just a problem for recruitment, but a profound security risk.
I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made that we have had too many reviews, so I hesitate to use the word—if I could think of another word, I would use it—but we need a quick total review of the people issue in our armed forces. It could be done quickly and all it probably entails is an amalgamation of all the work done by others, but I would like to see that with a great degree of urgency. It should look at recruitment, terms and conditions, families—crucially—and onward progression in all three services, so that we can with the urgency required turn around the recruitment crisis.
Having made the general point about the importance of investment in people, I come quickly to the major services of the armed forces, and first is the Navy. It is  important that we invest in all five domains, including in the grey zone and sub-threshold activity, which are so important. Our principal specialism in the United Kingdom historically and now remains our sea power. It is a good thing we are moving towards a maritime strategy. I recognise that is the Government’s priority, and I say that as a representative of a land-locked county with all these soldiers in it. Nevertheless, we need significant investment in the Navy. We would all like to see these things, but let us actually do it and have more submarines, more escorts and more minesweepers. We need seabed warfare vessels. On that point, I call the House’s attention to a report from Policy Exchange a month or so ago talking about western approaches and the significant threat we face in these islands and across Europe to undersea infrastructure. It is fundamentally our responsibility on behalf of Europe to protect that.
I have mentioned the new model army and the New Bletchley report, and I would like to see a real commitment to a reformed and modernised Army. We have to recognise the point made by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Nick Carter when he said that the Army is the weakest of the three services. That is a sad state of affairs. I suppose one has to be the weakest; I am sorry it is the Army. There are big questions over our ability to field a division in Europe, as promised to NATO. According to a senior US officer, the UK cannot even be called a tier 1 power. I understand that the Committees were told by a former commander of joint forces command that our Army will not be ready to fulfil its NATO commitments until the early 1930s. Indeed, that was the assumption of the integrated review, so in a we are sense back to the 10-year rule, which is not how things should be. [Interruption.] Did I say 1930s?

Alec Shelbrooke: You did.

Danny Kruger: I think we are up to speed on that— the 2030s.
The case for investment in the Army is obvious, and the good news is that it is easier, quicker and cheaper to refit and upscale the Army than it is the Navy, because kit is smaller and cheaper. However, we do not just need the same Army but a bigger one. We need a medium-sized Army that is bespoke for the job that will be done—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the right point about the sort of Army we need. The Army needs, in a resonant phrase, to defend these islands, but it also needs to act in partnership with other services and with our allies in the west. We do not need another great new major continental army such as the one the Poles are building. We need a rapid reaction joint expeditionary force that is agile, mobile, and able to do the job that is required, in partnership with our allies.
On the sphere of operations, ultimately our commitments need to reflect the threats we face. In a sense, those are classified, and I recognise the challenge that the Committees have had in identifying what our capabilities are, and the tasks that Ministers set for them, because we cannot always know exactly what those threats are, with defence planning assumptions now classified. Nevertheless, I echo a point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham: I am delighted about AUKUS, which is a tremendous step forward in our international role and a great thing for British security. I am not averse to those  global arrangements—they are absolutely right. I loved the deployment of the Queen Elizabeth and the carrier strike group to Japan.
Fundamentally, however, we are, and should be, committed to the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, and for that purpose we must restore the mass of our own armed forces and Army. That means growing our capabilities here at home. We need more regulars, and to get back towards having 80,000 or 90,000 regular forces. We must significantly grow the reserve force because 30,000 is not enough, even if that figure of 30,000 is real, which I do not believe it is. The campaign to grow our reserves is necessary not just for its own sake, but as a great exercise in communication to the public about the imperative for us all to step up and play our role in the defence of our country.
There is a great deal of concern, which I think is misplaced, about the attitude of the British people to fighting. We had that in the 1930s, with lots of people saying that the British would not fight, but of course they would, of course they did, and of course they will if they have to answer their country’s call. That is young people in particular. They will do it with irony, and certainly with memes, but they will do it and sign up if they need to. This is not an abstraction. We have already seen in the past year or two what war in our region means. It means inflation—imagine that tenfold if a war breaks out in which our country is directly involved—and cyber-attacks on a terrible scale.
We are now at a turning point, as so many Members have said, and it is time for all of us as a country to step up. There is an opportunity and an imperative for us to strengthen our nation. It is about industrial resilience and our own food supply; it is about our supply chains, and our steel and manufacturing capacity. There is a huge opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, in the importance of the industrial supply chain. This is a time for us all to do what is needed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am getting concerned because although I do not have a problem with interventions, some of the speeches have been not 13 minutes but 16 minutes, and that means we then have pressure for the Front-Bench speeches to be shorter than we hope them to be. If colleagues take interventions, I ask them to please still try to keep within the limit. Another debate is due to start at 3 o’clock, and I must get as near to that as I possibly can.

Richard Foord: I echo the positive words that have been spoken already this afternoon about the reports from the Public Accounts and Defence Committees, and it is timely that we get all this out into the open. In the Budget earlier this month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that defence spending “will rise to 2.5% as soon as economic conditions allow.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 846.]
What indications has the Minister had from the Prime Minister and Chancellor about when economic conditions might allow? What are the conditions that might allow, and when might they be met?
This week the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), gave an interview to the i newspaper, in which she described “big nasties” facing public spending. She talked about “slow politics”, where decisions are made with a long-term strategic perspective at the forefront. That is especially pertinent when it comes to defence capabilities. As we are entering a period of global uncertainty, it is concerning to read in the PAC report that there are glaring discrepancies around how spending is identified for single services. For example, the report highlights the way that planned spending is reported. Whereas the Royal Navy includes all costs in its plans, creating an on-paper deficit of more than £15 billion, the Army includes only what estimates it can afford, resulting in a running deficit of about £1.2 billion. Had the Army followed the same procedures as the Royal Navy, its deficit would soar to over £13 billion. Such inconsistency in budget reporting is, I am sure, not a deliberate lack of transparency, but it can bring about distrust when it comes to planned defence spending.
The Defence Committee’s “Ready for War?” report stresses the need to replenish our much depleted munitions stockpiles. It highlights that there has been a “hollowing out” over the past 14 years—we have heard that talked about, including from the Dispatch Boxes—but that has been brought into sharp relief by an emboldened, aggressive, nationalist Russian state. If we cannot co-ordinate defence spending in a clear manner, we risk weakening the perception of our defence capabilities. The issue of the budget deficit goes further, with the Committee highlighting a £16.9 billion deficit over 10 years, due in part to rising inflation. We know that defence inflation is greater than other measures of inflation, partly because a lot of our defence equipment is imported from overseas, particularly the United States.
There is a 62% increase in spending on the Defence Nuclear Organisation, and the report states that defence spending would need to increase to around 2.5% of GDP to plug that gap. Ministers are entrenching the uncertainty around budget planning, meaning that important projects risk being deprioritised. At present, the defence budget is thought to be about 2.1%, and some measures try to include our defence commitment to Ukraine, so that it might rise to 2.25%. The MOD said that the difference between 2.25% and 2.5% of GDP is about £6 billion or £7 billion. There are important reasons why that increase might be necessary. Although we spend 2.1% on defence as a whole, around 6% of that goes to fund our nuclear capabilities. Prior to 2010, the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent was kept out of Ministry of Defence spending measures and held centrally, whereas now it is all included in the defence budget, meaning that our conventional spending has seen a great deal of squeeze over the last decade-plus.
By failing to invest in our armed forces over a sustained period, we have heard cries of operational readiness being affected, and people crying about overstretch. I recall that word from my own service about 20 years ago, when people were declaring that the armed forces were running hot and that they were overstretched. That is why it is essential for Governments to know how much they can commit their armed forces. That comes back to what we used to call the defence planning assumptions about how many operational overseas  deployments might take place simultaneously. Up until 2015, those defence planning assumptions were published, but since 2015 they have not been published and have been very much held behind a cloak. I see no real reason from a security perspective or from the point of view of what our adversaries might think, for keeping those withheld. As was pointed out to the Defence Committee, our adversaries probably know our capabilities well, and they will be analysing our intentions. It is arguably better to be transparent about those defence planning assumptions if that means a reduction in the call on the armed forces by other Departments of Government.
In recent years, we have seen that a lot, with Departments having sought to use the armed forces for military aid to the civil authorities, whether for ambulance strikes or to cover for the fire service. The armed forces have been pulled in for those roles and taken away from training, which is essential to their mission. Transparency is very much required.
When that is combined with the persistent issues of repeated cuts and reductions in personnel, our armed forces could be in an even more challenging place than is currently suggested. We really need to sort this out. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referred to the recent speech by the Secretary of State for Defence about moving from a post-war period to a pre-war era. I was alarmed to hear that speech. I am an advocate for the Roosevelt phrase,
“speak softly and carry a big stick”.
In talking about moving from post-war to pre-war, I felt that he was doing quite the reverse: investing no new money in defence while speaking with a rather loud mouth.
It strikes me that the Defence Secretary is not doing enough to advocate for spending in private, because he is doing it in public through leaked letters to the Chancellor, as reported in The Daily Telegraph. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), did the honourable and decent thing by stepping away from his Cabinet role when he could no longer tolerate Cabinet collective responsibility in relation to defence spending.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Member agree that the strategy the Defence Secretary is employing has nothing to do with defence but is possibly to do with a future bid to become leader of the Conservative party?

Richard Foord: I grateful to the right hon. Member. While I will not speculate on the Defence Secretary’s intentions, I certainly think that has had the effect of putting him out of step with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister such that he is no longer engaged in collective responsibility.
It seems to me that by talking up increases in the defence budget in cash terms rather than real terms, the Government are hiding behind recent high inflation. I will give the House a specific example. Following the publication of the PAC report on 8 March, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson, who was asked to respond to that report, replied:
“We are ensuring that we have the largest defence budget in history”.
That is so much spin as to be like a vortex—it is way off to suggest that. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), during the cold  war, defence spending was north of 6% of GDP. I am not advocating for defence spending to return to anything like those levels, because I recognise that we were dealing then with an eastern Europe in the grips of Russia and very much surrounded by and part of the Warsaw pact, with all its contributions assisting the Warsaw pact inventory, whereas now our spending is very much contributing to NATO’s defence of Europe and the deterrence of Moscow. I would understand the phrase “as soon as economic conditions allow” if we were talking about an absolute cost—for example, the cost of a frigate or a platform, with a price tag—but we are not; we are talking about a relative cost. The Government need to set out what those economic conditions are.
Finally, I turn to land. As we have heard rehearsed in the House many times, the Army is being reduced from 82,500 to 73,000 soldiers. Earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker talked about the considerable expertise in this place, but the greatest defence experience is probably in the other place. Those who rose to the top of their professions in the armed forces now speak with the greatest wisdom on defence. I would therefore like to quote from some of them, starting with three former Chiefs of the General Staff.
In January, Lord Richard Dannatt said:
“The bottom line is numbers do matter… It is a fact that at 73,000 the British Army has never been smaller”.
In March 2021, Lord David Richards said that “mass still matters”. In May 2022, General Sir Nick Carter said that
“in the order of 80,000”
soldiers are required to ensure that the UK could field a full division as part of a combined NATO force.
Although the current Chief of the General Staff is somewhat restricted in what he can say while in post, in June 2022 he said that the UK was facing a “1937 moment”, and that
“it would be perverse if the CGS was advocating reducing the size of the Army as a land war rages in Europe”.
I firmly advocate for the Army to be restored to that 83,000 figure. When will those economic conditions be met so that we might see 2.5% spent on defence?

Alec Shelbrooke: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for leading the debate with his report. On the first Thursday back in January 2022, six weeks before Russia further invaded Ukraine, many hon. Members currently in the Chamber were here for a debate about the need to increase defence spending. There was an argument about whether we were in a cold war scenario, which came back to the same thing: it is all very well talking about increasing spending, but where do the threats lie?
The mea culpa from my point of view is that, right up to 22 February 2022, I was saying that I did not believe Putin was going to invade Ukraine. I thought he was testing the borders and seeing where the strengths were. That day, I learned the important lesson that politicians often use the word “think” when they should be using “hope”. Much of the debate is based around what we want to see happen and what we hope will happen.
We may say, “I think perhaps we don’t need to expand the military as much as that. Perhaps the money is better off being spent elsewhere. Are we really going  to go nuclear? Is he really going to do that?” We talk about development in the High North and maritime. Perhaps we need more Navy, because that will become a much more critical area in our security, our trade and our defence, but we hear the same thing: it is highly unlikely that there will be a surface warfare battle. Well, nobody thought there would be a tank battle in Europe. Since the second world war, nobody thought there would be an armoured vehicle and troop battle with trench warfare in Europe again, but that has happened.
I have been asked recently, “Are we going to have world war three?” It is an interesting question. How do we define world war three in the 21st century? Will it be the nuclear armageddon that people think? I do not believe that—I will come back to that. Will it be several instances of wars and armed conflicts in several areas that affect our country directly? Yes, and I believe that is where the world is moving to, especially when we look at the supply chains around the world. That affects not just this country, and it will lead to other investments having to be made.
There is a famine taking place in Sudan because of what is happening in the Red sea, where there is a reduction in supplies getting through. When these events take place, they have consequences in many areas of the world. We can talk about whether there is a world war and whether we will be involved, but we are—we are in the Red sea and we are giving support to Ukraine and other areas, which is building up.
We should not look at Ukraine as an individual thing that Putin is talking about and that ridiculous interview he did with Tucker Carlson in which he said, “Well, I haven’t got any intentions to invade anywhere else.” He literally wrote it down in July 2021. It takes about half an hour to read, and he lays it out line by line—“Not only do we need to rebuild the Russian Empire, but we need to reunite the historic Russian-speaking people”. We heard all of this in another book 100 years earlier, and we all know where that led, so we all know the consequences of us not preparing for it.
Something about NATO has been forgotten and overlooked. Everybody talks about article 5—that an attack on one is an attack on another, and we come to the rescue—but everybody forgets article 3, which says that members must be able to defend their borders first and foremost. There are only 14 articles in the actually very well-written Washington treaty, and article 3 makes it clear that members have to be able to defend their borders and that article 5 is a reinforcement that can take up to three weeks to arrive.
Do we believe that if Putin invades the Baltic states, that is where the effect on NATO will be? That would be tactically daft of Putin. It is more likely, if he decides to invade NATO territory, that he will want to tie all the NATO allies up to start with. There is good news and bad news. There is good news in what China has said to Putin because of their trade with India, South America and southern Africa. The Chinese especially have made it crystal clear that if Putin was even to demonstrate his ability to use a nuclear weapon—say, in the middle of the Black sea—they would say, “That’s it, we’re gone; we are not dealing with you.” That has probably taken the nuclear weapon issue off the table, especially with strategic nuclear weapons.
By the way, I do not want the House to get excited and think I am saying that we do not need to renew Trident, because there are still plenty of places around  the world that are pushing that territory. As we always come back to, Trident is a deterrent weapon; it is not a weapon to be used. If it were to be launched, quite frankly we would not be arguing about it anyway. This does mean that we are in a far weaker position if nuclear is off the table, because we know, and Putin knows—he is doing it right now—that he can outproduce us in shells, tanks and people. Russia is paying €2,000 a month to people coming in from the far-flung areas of the country. People from some of these places do not earn that in a year. They have no shortage of personnel or cash.
Therefore, we have to start being honest with our questions. Do we need to build more capital equipment? Do we need more personnel? Yes, we do need more capital equipment, and we are going down that route, but we also need the revenue budgets to run that. To follow the fiscal rules and say “Look how much money we are putting into defence” is great, but it has to be capital, because they have not given the revenue. It is a case of: “Let’s line up all our shiny ships, but we can’t fuel them, maintain them or crew them.” It is the same in the Army and the Air Force. There must be a fundamental change at the Treasury in how the money is spent.
As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, let us have some honesty in this Chamber. We can sit here and say, “We need to go to 2.5% or 3%, or maybe 4% or 5%.” What Government and which politician will stand up in this House and say, “That 3% reduction in GDP since the end of the cold war has gone into the health service and the Department for Work and Pensions, so we will cut the health service and DWP by 3% to invest in defence”? Who will stand up here and say that? Who will put that in their manifesto? Let us not pretend that that will happen, but the money does need to be spent more efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has done an excellent job with the integrated procurement model, which talks about things that he has worked on for a long time, I believe—for example, spiral development. We are very fond of talking about where we were in the 1920s and 1930s, but I want to take us back even further, to the 1910s, when the Dreadnought model was brought out. HMS Dreadnought was the most incredible ship ever built in terms of firepower, but it hit the reset button by making every other ship irrelevant. It could sink all of them, so there was an arms race. Within eight years, HMS Dreadnought was useless. HMS Iron Duke, which was still a Dreadnought class, was a totally different ship, but it had been part of the design process as it went on. Bear in mind that we were still only producing four Dreadnought battleships a year when we were chucking all our efforts in leading up to 1914 and beyond.
I recently spoke at a dinner, and a young person in their early 20s asked me, “What do you think about this comment from General Sanders about conscription? Because there’s no way I would be conscripted to go and fight for this country. Why should I bother? I am not going out to get killed. It’s not worth it. You spend all this money and waste money there. What are you offering me? It’s not worth it.” I said, “Well the problem is that you are looking at this in the society you live in today. If you are going to get conscripted, it is because  our cities will lay in rubble. You only have to look at Kyiv. Forget wanting to sit at home and watch Netflix or play Xbox or do whatever you want, there is no electricity. There’s no water. There’s no gas or heating. There is starvation.” That is happening in Europe today.
How does one stop that happening? The word is deterrent. I have never met senior military personnel who are not at heart pacifists. They understand what warfare means. They understand the death and destruction that it brings and the decades it takes to recover. They do not want to go to war. I have never met anybody in the military who wants to go to war. This all takes investment. The honest fact that we are not going to cut health services or the DWP—some of our biggest spending budgets—and spend the money on defence means that we have to work with what we have. Yes, we can grow the economy and take more tax revenue. We can do all that, but that has not really happened in the 21st century. The 21st century has roughly been 50/50 between the Government and the Opposition. Even when the economy has grown, it has been around the margins. There has to be an honest conversation.
The procurement strategy my hon. Friend the Minister has produced is the right way forward. We are aware of the costs. I will say one more thing, almost directly contradicting myself. The war in Ukraine has shattered its economy. Forget the spending to fight the war; the loss in GDP of being able run an economy and export when at war is significantly bigger than an increase of 2% or 3%. Be under no illusion: if Putin wants to invade NATO territory, it will not be tanks rolling over the line up in the Baltics or maybe in east Poland, and we will have to go out there; it will be a full-scale NATO attack, and we will have to work out what we do.
The best way we can stop that is to make sure we have the deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent has always been valuable because they have no idea when or where we would strike back from. That has made it a useless weapon to use, but we have to have that weapon. If we say that is cancelled out, because of the attitude of China and Russian allies towards Russia were it to use one, then we have to accept that our conventional weapons are not going to counterbalance Russia and what is happening.
Nobody in this Chamber, in the military, at the MOD or in Europe, and probably anywhere in the western world, wants to go to war and see death and destruction on the scale we are seeing in too many areas of the world. We see famine and humanitarian crises taking place. Yes, we are going to have to spend more money, but we need to spend it more efficiently, and we need to make sure that when the increases come they will be used effectively. We need to remember that this is an investment so that we do not have to use the deterrent. If we do not have it, we will have to end up using something we do not actually have.

George Galloway: On that surreal note, let me quote Rudyard Kipling:
“We don’t want to fight, but by jingo if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too!”
There is plenty of jingo, but the ships, the men and the money are more difficult to find. I genuinely hope that some of the fantasy talk in this debate is widely seen by  the general public. It was a Gilbert and Sullivan performance as Members first conceded that our weaknesses are such that we had to conceal the extent of them in the report—that is what the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said in an intervention.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Member give way?

George Galloway: No, I will not. I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s injunction that she is fast running out of time, and I do not intend to take my whole 13 minutes. The right hon. Member should not worry—I will make sure that people see his performance. He said that we need to conceal the extent of our weakness, then he adumbrated our weakness. If that was not our total weakness—if there are weaknesses that he concealed from that list—I ask myself, why on earth are these people pirouetting in this Parliament about which enemy they are going fight, and in which theatre of war?

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep this brief. For the record, the gentleman has traduced me. He has said directly the opposite of what I actually said, as Hansard will show.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which he has used to make his point. Let us return to George Galloway.

George Galloway: Pomposity, but not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were careful to conceal some of our weakness, and then he adumbrated those weaknesses. If there are more that he concealed, we are in very big trouble. My point is this: we haven’t the men, we haven’t the ships and we haven’t the money, so why are we picking enemies? I have lost count, in the course of the debate, of the number that we are either already fighting or may have to get ready to fight. That is the absurd “Alice in Wonderland” nature of this debate.
We cannot retain even the low numbers of people we recruit. Why? We ought to know why: the lions do not much like the look of the donkeys who lead them into war after war, which they later disown and admit should never have been fought. You know to what I refer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a debate at the Oxford Union; the then Defence Secretary ran away and did not turn up. I had to deal with his subordinates, but I made the point there. I was a boy soldier: Royal Artillery Battery 2, Army Cadet Force. I trained with the Royal Marines for weeks in Poole, in Dorset. I am in no sense a pacifist. I want to defend our country. I want our soldiers to be properly paid, properly housed, properly clad, properly trained and properly armed.
I have picked up Tommy Atkins, stricken with addiction, from Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, just out of Strangeways, addicted to Spice and abandoned by the politicians who gayly sent him off to one needless, pointless, fruitless war after another. Don’t come here and say you’re standing up for Tommy Atkins. The donkeys who sent him to wars that even the donkeys now disavow are the reason that people do not join our armed forces. They do not trust those people over there not to send them to another Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are right not to trust them.
The truth is that our country is in very real danger of falling into the same trap as Mussolini: going around the world, threatening people with Germany’s army. Our politicians go around the world threatening people with America’s army, but there is a big change coming, and they do not like it on either side of the aisle. President Trump is coming back in November, and he does not much fancy their NATO. He does not intend to send American soldiers to die for Kupiansk or for the Zelensky regime in Kyiv. He has no intention whatever of continuing its war in Ukraine.
I heard a senior Member of the House say, “If America withdraws from NATO, we will have to increase our contribution to 5%, 6% or maybe 7% of GDP.” Do these people seriously imagine that they will continue in NATO without the United States of America? What kind of NATO would it be—it really would be Gilbert and Sullivan—unless we devote not £50 billion of our public treasure but hundreds of billions on defence? Have any of these people seen the state of the public realm in Britain? Have they seen the state of the national health service? Have they seen the state of our streets, public buildings and public transport? Have they seen the wage packets earned in this country? Have they seen pensioner poverty and fuel poverty in action? Have they met people who have to choose between eating and heating? These fools want to spend not £50 billion but hundreds of billions on weapons of war, which we will fight with an Army that could fit into Villa Park—70,000 soldiers can fit into a single football stadium.
For some time, I was the Member of Parliament for a naval shipbuilding yard, Yarrow’s on the Clyde—producers of excellence. I wrestled—not physically—with our late and lamented friend Alan Clark when he was the Procurement Minister, and I won. I got all five of the Type 23s procured at that time. I want us to have a good Navy, and a good Army, but not so we can sail it to bombard the natives in the Red sea or send a Gilbert and Sullivan squadron to the South China sea, like a peashooter firing at an elephant—or a whale in the case in the Chinese navy. I do not want us to send our 70,000 soldiers and our aircraft carriers that break down and have to be glued together, or our destroyers that crash into each other in the Solent.
I do not want us to pretend that we are a Rudyard Kipling-era imperial power. That is the key problem. Some of these people still think that we are in the 19th century and can send gunboats up the Yangtze and not have them sunk, and that the natives in Yemen are the natives we used to push around for a century or more. The empire strikes back, and the empire is bigger than us now. We owned India; now the Indians own us. Shall I take that metaphor further? There is an idea that those in this little country of ours—this dear green place, with all its problems and enfeeblement caused by our economic decline and the rapid and massive economic advance of others—are still in a position to stand in this Parliament making dispensations to this battleground or that, or that we can still slice our diminishing national wealth in a way that allows us to pretend to be an imperial power.
I have time only for one last point. I was startled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, when she told us that £2 billion of our defence budget is going on foreign exchange costs, meaning that not only are we spending 50 billion of  British taxpayers’ pounds, but that we are spending it in foreign countries. We are allowing foreign companies and yards to build our defence infrastructure in a way, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, that France would never dream of doing. Whatever we are going to spend, spend it in Britain, spend it in British yards, spend it in British factories. You’ll save £2 billion in foreign exchange costs at the very least.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I genuinely will not take 13 minutes for my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our armed forces give it their all every single day for our protection. Their level of commitment and courage is, sadly, not matched by this Government. Worse, as our Defence Committee report and the reports from the Public Accounts Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) show, the Government have presided over reductions in personnel, depletion of kit and delays in new capabilities. When it comes to the biggest threat of all, war, there is not a single service that is fully ready. This did not happen overnight. This is a culmination of, to use the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), the “hollowing out” of our forces over the last 14 years. The new Defence Secretary rightly said that we are in a pre-war world. But to acknowledge that and then do nothing about it is negligent.
The world is in turmoil: war in Ukraine, conflict in the middle east, fear of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, an aggressive Russia and an unpredictable China, as well as our armed forces responding to humanitarian missions and MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests, as they did throughout the pandemic. This all makes a pre-war footing all the more urgent. This is not an exhaustive list, but when it comes to our Royal Navy there are delays to the Type 26 frigates, issues with the availability of SSNs, delays to Dreadnought and an over-reliance on RFA Fort Victoria. Our Royal Air Force has a shortfall in fixed-wing transport aircraft numbers, insufficient numbers of maritime patrol aircraft and Wedgetail airborne early warning systems, a lack of air-to-air refuelling, and a lack of ground-based air defence systems or an anti-ballistic missile capability. Our Army lacks infantry fighting vehicles, multiple launch rocket systems, Challenger tanks and armoured fighting vehicles.
We have rightly committed ammunition to Ukraine, but the £1.95 billion announced to replenish stockpiles was not ringfenced. We have heard that the Ministry of Defence is potentially using it to help offset funding shortfalls, instead of using it to restore our warfighting ability. Our lack of industrial capacity is also causing problems with replenishment in particular, as many companies, both at prime and sub-prime level, are facing challenges in scaling up. A failure to address supply chain issues represents a significant risk to production. As the PAC report from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch on the MOD’s equipment plan found, there is no credible Government plan to deliver the desired military capabilities.
As for our personnel, the Haythornthwaite review in 2022 found a net outflow of 4,660 per year from our armed forces. There are significant pinch points in cyber, digital and AI skills. Those who serve in our forces are exceptional people, but they are constantly being asked to do more with less. The result has been significantly lower morale, with recruitment and retention issues across our services and across the reserves. Our Defence Committee report notes:
“Either the Ministry of Defence must be fully funded to engage in operations whilst also developing warfighting readiness; or the Government must reduce the operational burden on the Armed Forces.”
These are difficult decisions to make, but it is obvious that the Government are not going to make them as they are limping towards electoral oblivion. Frustratingly, the Government hindered our inquiry considerably by not sharing with us the information they hold on readiness—information that used to be available. Worse still, they were unable to explain to us why this information has become classified. Bearing in mind that our allies and countries at greater risk than us share theirs, it is fair to conclude that the reason the information is not being shared is because readiness levels are far worse than even we conclude in our report.
Our conclusion, bluntly speaking, is that we are not ready for war. The recent Budget saw no increase for defence, and that is after the cuts referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Just this week, ex-defence and security chiefs said we must prepare genuinely for war. But we do not have the personnel or the kit to be ready for war. Far worse than that, we do not have the right Government in place to be ready for it either.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, let me just say that the Front-Bench contributions in this debate are longer than normal, but we will be able to finish the debate by 3 o’clock as I had indicated. The SNP will have 10 minutes, the Opposition 15 minutes and the Government 15 minutes.

Martin Docherty: Well, this was a debate that certainly went in directions I never thought it would go.
It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who may be in a different party but is a very good friend on the Defence Committee. I commend the report from the Committee, of which I am once again a member. There are a few things we do not agree on, but on the vast majority of issues we do agree. That brings me back to the old Scottish nation’s motto, which is “In Defens”. I am very much akin to that. I also share some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) on how we do not push ourselves into conflicts that are unnecessary. I may come back to that in a few moments.
I want to come back to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on background and family. I have said umpteen times in the Chamber that my brother served in Iraq and had two terms in Afghanistan as a reservist. I will come back to the specific point on people in the armed forces later. The right hon. Gentleman talked about his dad.  My dad is 99. I am lucky my dad is still here. He survived the worst aerial bombardment these islands have ever seen. It was only after about 75 years that the Government recognised that it was the worst aerial bombardment the UK had seen during the second world war. Last Wednesday, I was able to attend, as I try to every year, the 83rd commemoration of the Clydebank Blitz, which took place on 13 and 14 March 1941. I also stood at one of the mass graves in Clydebank on Saturday to lay  a wreath on behalf of my constituents. I do so with privilege and in honour of our family of survivors.
I want to pick up on three points relating to readiness in terms of people, partnership and position, and how they link critically to the word resilience, which I think I heard some Members mention. The right hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Warley (John Spellar) are probably sick to death of me talking over several years about resilience, but it is inextricably linked to what readiness should be all about. Let me talk about people first and how resilient are the armed forces.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) cannot be here today—I did tell her that I would mention her today—because she chaired a sub-committee on women in the armed forces, which exposed some of the most profoundly difficult questions and scrutiny in Parliament about recruitment and retention that the armed forces have ever had to face. I hate the term “ordinary ranks”. What does “ordinary” mean—people on the frontline who have to go over the ditch? There is nothing ordinary about that. As I said earlier, my brother did it as a reservist, but the report exposed dreadful questions about women and members of black and ethnic minority communities. Why are we not retaining or even recruiting them? Why, moreover, are young men not wanting to join up? This returns me to the issue of terms and conditions, which I have often talked about.
I remember arguing with a former Chair of the Defence Committee—he is not here, but I see that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has turned up—who was also a former Minister. He had said that members of the armed forces were not employees or workers. That may be the case in law, but they still deliver a service. If we want to retain people, it is critically important that we copy what so many of our NATO allies do in recognising the value and worth of members of the forces—whether in the Royal Navy, the Army or even the Royal Air Force—and recognising their rights, one of which is the right to representation. My party and I have always said that we believe the armed forces require a representative body like the Police Federation.
The kingdom of Denmark, for instance, which paid the blood price in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a very robust armed forces representative body. The problem there is not about recruitment, but about how in God’s name you persuade people to leave the armed forces in Denmark, because it is such a good—wait for it—employer. They are still willing to go over the ditch and take up the cudgels on behalf of their country. That brings us to the question of how we should deal with people here in the UK who may be over-reliant on charitable organisations, which, of course, are very well-meaning and committed.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I think that there must be a real, radical revolution in the way in which the armed forces not only recruit but employ people. The number  of 18-year-olds is falling. We are going to need more flexible employment models enabling people to leave, come back in, have career breaks and so forth. Unless we do that, we will not be able to persuade them to join our armed forces.

Martin Docherty: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that his party has joined mine—I think; I am not sure whether this is still a Labour manifesto commitment—in recommending the introduction of an armed forces representative body. However, a critical issue is how the skills that already exist can be utilised. I cannot believe that I am going to use the word “emulate” when speaking of the United States, but that flexibility is emulated by the United States and also by many of our other NATO allies.
When it comes to readiness and having people on the frontline in the physical armed forces, I am not going to play the numbers game, because this is a political and philosophical issue. It is about how we retain and recruit. I think that fundamental rights for members of the armed forces should be enshrined in law. They should not need to go to those very well-meaning charitable organisations to receive assistance with housing, with their mental health, and even with their physical health. Members of the Danish armed forces who have suffered an injury do not go to a special unit; they go to a Danish national hospital like every other Danish citizen, because there they will benefit from the delivery of a robust public service.
That, in turn, brings me to the way in which the armed forces and, critically, the Army in particular have been challenged during the pandemic. Some former members of the Defence Committee who are not present today kept going on about the need for the Army to step up to the plate in dealing with resilience. The right hon. Member for North Durham has heard me talk about resilience in Committee. It is not, in my view, the role of the Army to pick up civilian action. During the pandemic, the Army in England and Wales had to do that in respect of the Nightingale hospitals, not just in terms of logistics and design but in terms of the actual physical infrastructure. Why was that? It was because most parts of the NHS procurement processes to build the Nightingale hospitals had been privatised years ago. We had taken a very physical state ownership of that civil structure of resilience and readiness out of the hands of the Government and the NHS and given it to private contractors, who have made billions on the back of it.
Let me give a Scottish example, the Louisa Jordan Hospital. The Army stepped up to the plate in helping with the logistics, but they were not required to build the internal structure of the Louisa Jordan. Most of it was in the Scottish conference centre. That internal structure was built through NHS Scotland procurement, because it was fit for purpose and ready to play its part. When we are talking about people, we should bear in mind that readiness is not just about members of the armed forces; it is also about the larger civilian infrastructure.
The right hon. Member for Warley is not present now, but he and I—along with, I think, the right hon. Member for New Forest East—travelled to Washington some years ago with the Defence Committee. Part of our purpose was to understand where our infrastructure was. How, for example, do we transfer, through partnerships between states—critically, within the continent of Europe   —a division, or tanks, across bridges and roads which, since the end of the cold war, are no longer equal in terms of weight or infrastructure? How difficult is it to move a tank from a port to, say, technically, the eastern front if that is required? Partnerships of that kind have been allowed to disappear in the post-cold war era.
However, there are other important partnerships, such as the United Nations with its peacekeeping role. It was disappointing that not only the United Kingdom but other countries have had to pull out of Mali, at the instigation of the Malian Government, in the last couple of years. That peacekeeping role is a crucial part of the infrastructure of maintaining international order grounded in the rule-based system. I was also disappointed by the Government’s decision to postpone, or put into abeyance, their investment and funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Palestine on the basis of a very small amount of information, or accusation, from the Government of the state of Israel in respect of the conflict in Gaza. I hope that the Government recognise the value and worth of that partnership in trying to quell some of the many big problems that are faced in that part of the world.
I think I have had my 10 minutes, but let me end by saying a little about the European Union in relation to partnership and position. I was glad to hear that the official Opposition may now be considering an improved relationship with the EU. We in the Scottish National party believe it is important to have a mutual defence agreement with the EU. As for the question of position, I am a Euro-Atlanticist, and I think it important for us to reposition ourselves, away from the issues of the Indo-Pacific.
I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) about the nuclear proposition. I think that the hon. Member for Rochdale and I are the only Members present who oppose nuclear weapons, but I think there is general agreement on the need to take the deterrent into another budget heading so that we have a full understanding of what that two-point-whatever percentage of GDP is. I hope that the Government will be able to respond to that in the debate today.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

John Healey: I started by knocking a glass of water over when I came into the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have finished by doing so.
I thank all Members for their contributions today, but I also thank the armed forces, as we all should, for everything that they do to keep us safe. Our UK armed forces are essential not just to the defence of our nation but to the members of our NATO alliance, and also to our UK role in upholding international law. We respect, as the world does, the professionalism with which they do their job.
I welcome the further AUKUS agreements that that are being signed this week between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This is our most important strategic defence alliance outside NATO. It is  so much more than a big submarine building programme. It demands UK national endeavour and UK national leadership, and it has the complete support of the Labour party.
President Putin claimed 88% of all the votes in last week’s Russian poll. It was a total sham of an election, but a serious moment for UK defence. Over the next decade, we will face Putin and an alliance of aggression from autocrats who have contempt for international law, and who squander freely the lives of their own people.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), opened the debate by saying that we should start where all defence debates should start—with the threats that we face. The threats that we face will only increase, which is why we need a new era for defence, why these reports are so important, and why this debate is so important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before you took the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker said of this debate that it promised to be one of the best informed on all sides, and he was right. The right hon. Member for Horsham brought his experience not just as a former Minister, but as the Chair of the Defence Committee. I pay tribute to him, because we now agree that it is right to move away from competition by default and to see the defence sector as a “critical strategic asset”, as he called it, which is a reflection of the work that he has done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) asked the right question: what are we doing to create new industrial capacity in the UK and in collaboration with close allies?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said that she has seen the arguments and excuses, yet no efficiencies arrive. That was captured not just in her report, which is the subject of this debate, but in other reports that her Public Accounts Committee has undertaken into defence procurement since 2019, and in nine National Audit Office reports looking at the same problems.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a very moving speech about his father’s D-day experience. I particularly enjoyed the emotive part of his speech, where he got stuck into the Government and the MOD.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) was quite right to say that we are now in a moment of existential risk, because we are not ready to fight the wars that we may face. It is a theme that picked up by the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who said that we should be looking at not just our operational readiness, which is the subject of the Defence Committee’s report, but our strategic readiness. Part of that is about taking responsibility as a nation to develop greater resilience and, interestingly, greater talent, including in our political parties and in this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made a very strong argument for defence plans that are based on reality and on honesty about the UK’s role in the world, and especially the priority that we must give to our role in NATO. He, too, said that we must see defence investment directed first to benefiting the UK’s economy.
The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) has been a Defence Minister too, and he leads the NATO parliamentary delegation from  this country. He was right to remind us that for NATO member nations, article 3, on the obligation to defend their own country, is as important and fundamental as article 5, on the obligation to defend each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) spoke in some detail about the equipment shortfalls that the Defence Committee’s report lays out, and rightly spelled out the concern that the MOD is covering up the scale of the problems by not providing information to the public or Parliament. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who said that operational planning assumptions, which were published up until 2015, are no longer published.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) was right to talk about the concealment of truth about the state of our armed forces, but in fairness to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, that is exactly what the Defence Committee—he played a leading part in producing its report—is arguing the Government are not doing. Defending our people and our allies is not “Alice in Wonderland” or Gilbert and Sullivan; it is what people have a right to expect of their Government and Parliament.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who speaks for the SNP and has great experience on defence. I followed his three P’s, and I was particularly struck by his discussion of people. There is a requirement to do better in recruiting and retaining members of the armed forces. He argued that it is not just about numbers and that our forces must better reflect the diversity of the people they serve to protect.

Martin Docherty: I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for making those points, but I would push him on the issue of an armed forces representative body. Is it something that he and his party remain committed to?

John Healey: No, it is not. We have a much better solution, which is to legislate for an independent armed forces commissioner, like there is in Germany. They will be a voice for armed forces personnel and the families who support them, and will report to Parliament, not Ministers. In that way, we can reinforce the accountability of our military to this House and the public, as well as making it more responsive to those who serve. I will come to some points on that, if I may.
I pay tribute to all contributors to this debate, particularly those who are members of the two Committees on whose reports it is based. As they know, there are deep and long-running problems across defence, but I want to marshal my remarks into three main areas of findings in both reports: first, the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces; secondly, defence mismanagement and waste; and thirdly, the increasing lack of openness that we have seen recently from the Ministry of Defence.
On hollowing out and underfunding, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields reminded us that it was the last Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who told this House last January that the armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years. These reports reinforce that sobering assessment of our UK military power and readiness.
The Defence Committee found that there are
“capability shortfalls and stockpile shortages”
across the forces, that resilience has been undermined by reductions, and that there is a
“crisis in the recruitment and retention of both Regulars and Reserves”.
Our armed forces are
“losing personnel faster than they can recruit them.”
The hollowing out and underfunding is getting worse, not better.

James Cartlidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: The Minister can have his say later.
The Defence Committee report says that capability gaps are growing, reliance on allies is increasing, and we now have the largest ever deficit in the MOD’s equipment plan, at £16.9 billion. The PAC concluded that there is an “unmistakable deterioration” in the MOD’s financial position.
Like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I have brought along the Red Book. I have studied tables 2.1 and 2.2. The Treasury and the House of Commons Library confirm a reduction in defence budgets, which will be cut by £2.5 billion in cash terms for the next financial year. These are the budgeted baseline figures on which defence can plan, procure, deploy and develop capabilities—not the one-off add-ons for specific purposes, such as nuclear or Ukraine, which are the figures that Ministers too often use to inflate the figures on total spending and disguise the real budgets. This is where the country is left after 14 years of Conservative failure on defence, and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said that this is wholly unworthy of a Conservative Government. I say it is wholly unworthy of a British Government.

James Cartlidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I will not. The Minister has 15 minutes in which to make his point. [Interruption.] Okay, I will give way.

James Cartlidge: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have a specific question: does he support our target of 2.5%?

John Healey: As has been pointed out in this debate, 2.5% is an aspiration for when economic circumstances allow—there is no timetable, no plan and no credibility. The last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, under a Labour Government.
I turn to mismanagement and waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said that mismanagement and waste runs widely across defence. The PAC report found that only two of the 46 MOD equipment programmes are rated as “highly likely” to be delivered on time, on budget and on quality. Many defence procurement programmes are being delayed and are over budget. Ministers are failing British taxpayers and British troops but, most concerning of all, they have no plan to fix this. My hon. Friend said that one of our major concerns is that the MOD is putting off decisions—serious threats, serious problems and a serious lack of action from the Government to fix them.
The third area I want to mention is transparency. Civilian authority over our UK military involves accountability to elected civilian Ministers and elected Members of this House. Reducing MOD transparency is a theme that runs through both reports. The Defence Committee says it is “unacceptable” and the PAC says the MOD has refused even to publish a full equipment plan this year—that is the Minister’s responsibility—despite
“undertaking the same depth of financial analysis as in previous years.”
That should worry all Members, and it has been a growing concern of mine for some months. Whether it is Royal Navy ships’ days at sea or MACA agreements struck with other Departments, data that had previously been published and released to me is now being withheld. Instead of responding to my questions, Ministers are now saying, “We will write to you instead.” I am currently awaiting 26 letters, some of them dating back as far as December.
There are, of course, legitimate security reasons why some information cannot be released, but there are also obvious political reasons why a Government nearing an election would not want some of this information to be made public.
The Defence Committee expressed an important and clear warning in its report. Threats are increasing, just as concern is increasing about the state of our armed forces not just from the members of these Committees and from Members on both sides of the House but from Ministers, too. The Minister for Security, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), and even the Defence Secretary are publicly challenging their own Government’s defence policy in the press. The Defence Secretary is making arguments in the Daily Mail that he failed to win with the Chancellor. I feel for the Minister for Defence Procurement, who is almost the last man standing by the Government’s defence policy.
Labour will always do what is required to defend the country. If we win the confidence of the British people at the next election, our pledge is that Britain will be better defended under Labour. First, we will reinforce the protection of the UK homeland. Secondly, we will ensure that our NATO obligations are met in full. Thirdly, we will make our allies our strategic strength. Fourthly, we will renew the nation’s moral contract with those who serve. And fifthly, we will drive deep reform of defence, and we will direct defence investment first to British jobs and British business. This is how Labour will make our country secure at home and strong abroad. We will consult across the House in doing so because we want our plan to be not just Labour’s plan but Britian’s plan to be better defended in future.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank all those on the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for their thorough reports on armed forces readiness, defence equipment and inventory management.
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but I think he said that our armed forces are a gnat on the backside of an elephant.

Kevan Jones: No, I did not. If the Minister had actually listened, what I said is that our contribution in the event of a crisis in the South China sea would be a gnat on the backside of an elephant. That is very different from what the Minister said.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s clarification. Either way, I think we can all agree that it is important that we understand the extent to which our armed forces are ready and are out there serving the country as we speak.
Our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is entering its sixth decade of service, and our armed forces have helped us to become Ukraine’s most front-footed ally. We have trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian military personnel since 2014, and we are delivering more than £7 billion of military aid to Ukraine within our overall aid package worth almost £12 billion. That support is unwavering, with the recent announcement of our latest £2.5 billion package of military support for Ukraine being a £200 million uplift on the previous two years. Beyond our support for Ukraine, our armed forces are participating in every single NATO mission.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I did not apply to speak in this debate because I could not be sure that I would be here at the end. Will he impress upon the House how our aid to Ukraine is vital because, if Ukraine successfully thwarts Russia, all those dread scenarios about an attack on NATO will not happen? Similarly, although President Trump is a worry, it is at least a relief that he has begun to say that, provided Europe does its bit, he will continue with America’s support for NATO, should he be elected.

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) accuses us of imperialism in how we deploy our armed forces, but the whole purpose of our support is precisely to help Ukraine resist the imperialism of the Kremlin that he has shamefully supported while condemning what he calls the “Zelensky regime”. We heard him say it, and it is absolutely shameful.

George Galloway: Will the Minister give way?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to anyone so, if he will forgive me, I will continue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made an excellent point that we have heard a change of tone from Donald Trump in recent days.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The Minister says it is important to understand how ready our forces are, so can he tell us why key information on readiness is no longer published and why none of it was shared with our Committee?

James Cartlidge: I am happy to engage with the Committee, as I did during the week on artificial intelligence. There will always be a balance to be struck between what we can share and where we have to recognise the sensitivity of defence.
From the High North to the Mediterranean, we are deploying 20,000 service personnel from our Navy, Army and Air Force on the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender,  which is one of the alliance’s largest ever training exercises. It is a valuable opportunity to strengthen interoperability between us and our allies.
I am happy to report that, as the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Warley (John Spellar) said, overnight we have had confirmation that a new defence and security co-operation agreement has been signed with Australia, which will make it easier for our armed forces to operate together in each other’s country. It will also help facilitate UK submarine crews to visit Australia as part of AUKUS.
A large number of points have been made in this debate, and I will try to take as many as I can. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and several others, particularly the right hon. Member for Warley, talked about the importance of industrial resilience, and I totally agree.
The right hon. Member for Warley made an important point about finance. We must not forget the private sector’s role in investing in defence. We have seen commentary on environmental, social and governance, on which he wants to see cross-Government work. I am pleased to confirm that, with my Treasury colleagues, we held a meeting at Rothschild’s in the City to see what more we can do, and I am confident that we will be saying more on this important point about how we make the case for investing in defence as a way of investing in peace.

Mark Francois: On ESG, there have been many references to the second world way today. Is it worth reminding the House and the country that, if we had not had a defence industry building Spitfires and Hurricanes in 1940, this debate would not be taking place? In fact, this place would no longer exist.

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It shows why I want to see us supporting our sovereign capability, because where the Spitfire was there in the 1930s, we hope that the global combat air programme will be there in the 2030s.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister allow a brief intervention?

James Cartlidge: As my right hon. Friend has already intervened, I hope he will allow me to make some progress and refer to comments from colleagues.
Obviously, there has been particular debate about spending. The shadow Secretary of State was unable to answer whether Labour would match the figure of 2.5%, but a number of my colleagues wanted us to go further and faster. This point was put well by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). The Chair of the Defence Committee and others have suggested that we should look back to the sort of GDP figures in the cold war, although they did not necessarily say that we should go to exactly those amounts. However, as was said by the hon. Gentleman, who I believe was in military intelligence, in those days almost all of eastern Europe was an armed camp full of Soviet divisions, whereas now those countries are in NATO, so the situation has changed profoundly.
As was rightly said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke)—one of my predecessors as Minister for Defence Procurement—if we increase defence by a significant amount, the money  has to come from somewhere. An increase from the current level of about 2.3% to 3% equates to £20 billion, which is not a small amount of taxpayers’ money. Even an increase to 2.5% equates to an extra £6 billion. So it is Government policy to support that but to do so when we believe the economy can support it on a sustained basis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a passionate speech about how there had, in effect, been a cut to defence spending in the Budget, and several other Members said the same. I do not agree, although I accept that there is a debate about it. It is about the difference between the main estimate and the supplementary estimate, and some people have said it is about the inclusion of nuclear. To me, the nuclear deterrent is fundamental to defence, so of course it should be in the defence budget. We are not going to take out GCAP or frigates, and we are certainly not going to take out the nuclear deterrent, which is at the heart of the UK’s defence.

Jeremy Quin: I like a lot of what the Minister is saying. It is right to say that we have, in Poland, Finland and Sweden, allies in NATO that produce great capability in terms of dealing with the threat from Russia, but since 1989 China, now one of the two biggest economies in the world, has gone on to be spending £232 billion alone on defence—and that is just the official number. We also now have a nuclear armed North Korea, with Iran making its way in the same direction. The world picture is darkening. That may not necessarily “directly impact” us, to use the words of other hon. Members, although I think it does, but it has indirect impact on some of our allies and on where they need to place their resources. It is a real concern and we should not forget that.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. It shows why I have repeatedly said that we need to reform defence procurement because of the need to stay competitive with our adversaries.
I agree with the Chair of the PAC, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), that we cannot just look at what we want to spend and at the future aspiration; we have to look at how we spend the money that we have better. That is why on 28 February I announced our new integrated procurement model, to completely overhaul our approach to acquisition. I said in my speech—and I stand by this—that the current delegated procurement model, under the Levene reforms, has created an inadvertent tendency towards over-programming: as soon as there is financial pressure on the equipment plan, such as we have had through inflation, the single services compete to get their capability on contract. By contrast, the very definition of our integrated approach is pan-defence prioritisation, as we are seeing in practice in our pending munitions plan, which will address many of the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members about getting our industry up to spec in terms of missiles and other key munitions. Let me be clear that such prioritisation would be challenging even if we went to 2.5%, such is the nature of defence.
A particular priority of our new acquisition model, as was referred to by the Chair of the Defence Committee, is spiral development: accepting 60% or 80% of requirements rather than 100% exquisite. The key to that  is ramping up our engagement with industry, so we have held far more engagement events with industry at a secret level. Just this week, for example, we have held engagement between the strategic command and industry about cyber and electronic warfare—at a secret level, because we want to empower industrial innovation.
I have also said that exports are a key part of getting our industrial base as resilient as possible. So I am delighted to confirm the overnight news that BAE Systems will partner in Australia to build its nuclear-powered submarines. This is a major moment for AUKUS, and the collective submarine-building will support 7,000 additional British jobs across the programme’s lifespan.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who this week chaired the Sub-Committee on AI, both rightly stressed the importance of technology. To see that, one need only look at the situation in Ukraine and at the extraordinary propensity of electronic warfare, which underlines how the battle space has changed. So a key part of our system will be about learning the lessons from the frontline as rapidly as possible, as we spiral our own developments in response. We are learning those lessons. For example, as part of its drive to incorporate autonomous platforms flying alongside crewed fighters, the RAF is now progressing to procure drones to overwhelm an adversary’s electronic warfare defences. That underlines an important point: that advantage in future warfare and uncrewed combat, will not necessarily be gained by individual platforms and technologies; it will be their smart integration, across crewed and uncrewed systems, that will enable us to develop a force fit for the future. That is why I believe we need an integrated approach to procurement.
To conclude, the brief snapshot of military exercises that I have outlined today does not do justice to the breadth and reach of our armed forces. They are more than ready. They are out there, deployed all over the world, keeping us safe and defending our interests. Meanwhile, the reforms we have made to procurement will help us adapt to emerging threats and evolving technological possibilities. That is a key lesson from Ukraine and from our Defence Command Paper.
This Government will continue to back our armed forces with record levels of defence spending, an ambitious 10-year equipment plan and by forging a new partnership with industry to co-develop cutting-edge capabilities. It is a plan that will ensure that our defence industrial base is more resilient and our armed forces are better equipped. It is a comprehensive strategy for our national security, and I commend it to the House.

Jeremy Quin: Madam Deputy Speaker, as the shadow Secretary of State said, your predecessor in the Chair at the start of the debate complimented the hon. Members standing, saying that he anticipated the debate would be rich in facts and high in quality. Almost universally, he was absolutely right. It was an excellent debate.
There is an almost universal view, on both sides of the House, that our brilliant armed forces are simply running too hard against all that is demanded of them to meet essential commitments. A war is taking place on our continent. As the Defence Secretary has said, we are in a pre-war phase. Our Select Committees have an essential role to play in highlighting difficult issues, as we have been doing this afternoon. I endorse what the Chairman of the PAC said in relation to finding more ways in which Select Committees can scrutinise the most sensitive of defence programmes. That is important for Parliament and helpful for the Government.
We have to rise to the significant challenges set out in the two reports, on the readiness of the armed forces by the Defence Committee and the equipment plan by the PAC. I welcome what the Minister said about AUKUS. I did not expect him to answer all the questions that were raised in the reports, but he must work on it because I know the Department will work on it. We have our job to do. It is our duty to raise these difficult concerns, and I know both Committees will continue to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Defence Committee, Ready for War?, HC 26, the Eighth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Improving Defence Inventory Management, HC 66, and the Nineteenth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, MoD Equipment Plan 2023-33, HC 451.

Food Security

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Insect decline and UK food security, HC 326; Second Report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental change and food security, HC 312, and the Government response, HC 646; Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2022-23, Food security, HC 622, and the Government response, Session 2023-24, HC 37; Oral evidence taken before the International Development Committee on 30 January and 12 March 2024, on the UK Government’s work on achieving SDG2: Zero Hunger, HC 112; and e-petition 611113, Ban development on agricultural land to increase food self-sufficiency.]

Rosie Winterton: I will call Philip Dunne to move the motion and will put an advisory 15-minute limit on the clock, which I am sure will be helpful.

Philip Dunne: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of food security, including the effects on it of environmental change and of insect decline.
I start by thanking the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on food security, as covered in recent reports by the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, chaired respectively by myself and my right hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I look forward to their contributions.
Food security affects us all. We all want enough food to feed ourselves and our families. I declare a particular interest in this area as a food producer myself, having held responsibility for my family farm for over 30 years. Our reports are, we hope, in the broadest sense complementary, in that each Committee recognises threats to the country’s food security and makes recommendations to Government on how to mitigate those threats. It may be hard to imagine the UK not having access to enough food to feed our population, but the truth is that British people have already felt the effects of climate change on our plates. Cold snaps and floods in Spain and Morocco were partly to blame for empty salad shelves in our supermarkets last year. We know that extreme weather events both at home and abroad are likely to become more frequent. Cost of living pressures mean that there are households in this country for which insecure access to food is already a daily reality. I commend colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their work on household food security.
In the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, we looked at how to keep Britons fed in the face of environmental change. What we found is that food production and environmental change are—not to put too fine a point on it—mutually destructive. Climate change and biodiversity loss threaten to undermine not just food production itself, but the whole food system. Colleagues on the Science, Innovation and Technology  Committee have drawn attention to a particular aspect of this relationship in their recent report on insect decline and UK food security.
Our global food system is itself one of the biggest drivers of environmental change, contributing to those very factors that undermine food security. In our inquiry, we heard that British farming is responsible for only 0.5% of the UK’s gross domestic product, but 12% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, the food system is responsible for 30% of carbon emissions, but 50% of biodiversity loss.
We framed our findings around three pillars. First, we need to adapt our food and farming system to become more resilient to the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. Secondly, we must mitigate the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on our food system. Thirdly, we must mitigate the damage to the environment that some aspects of our food system may cause.
According to the latest annual statistics of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the UK produced 58% of its own food in 2022 and imported the remaining 42%. My Committee took the view that prioritising, sustaining and improving our dependence on home-grown produce would be key to keeping Britain nourished while protecting the planet. That will be particularly important for foods that are vital for our health but where we currently rely on imports. For example, we currently import 84% of our fruit. We cannot rely on domestic produce alone and even if we did it, would not guarantee food security. We heard that an exclusive focus on producing food here would make us more vulnerable, not less, to extreme weather events such as heatwaves, which are becoming more common not just in other countries, but here in the UK. Food produced here is dependent on the wider global food system. British food still relies on imported fertiliser, pesticide and animal feed.
We know all too well that the global food system does not exist in a vacuum. Health crises, such as the covid pandemic or avian flu; geopolitical crises, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world’s breadbasket; and global supply pinch points, such as the blockage in the Suez canal all affect supply chains, prices and protectionism, and compound the effects of environmental change. We have seen all those things in the course of this Parliament.
When food insecurity is exacerbated by environmental change it can lead to conflict, with devastating consequences. Incidentally, that is why our Committee has just this week launched a new inquiry into the effects of climate change and wider security issues, and I encourage anybody who is interested, including those interested in the impact on food security, to submit evidence by the end of April.
Today, we have published the Government’s response to our report on environmental change and food security, and I wish to thank the Minister and his officials who have engaged with our report. There is much in the response that we welcome, and I would like to focus my remarks this afternoon on some of the responses to the issues that the Committee highlighted in our report.
Under the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government are required to produce a food security assessment every three years. Although that is welcome, in view of the growing risk of volatility of food supplies, we urge the Government in our report to move to an annual publication  of its food security report, with which colleagues on the EFRA Committee agree. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the Government will introduce an annual food security index and encourage them to find parliamentary time to put this on to a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.
We found that one of the easiest wins in shoring up UK food self-sufficiency and mitigating the environmental impacts of our food system is to prevent the food that we have produced from going to waste, so I also welcome the £15 million that the Prime Minister recently announced to stop farm food going to waste. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed whether he agrees that the Government’s strategy for preventing food and drink waste, as outlined in their waste prevention programme for England, would be greatly enhanced if it included some targets and timescales for reducing food waste, as was recommended by my Committee.
In response to our report, the Secretary of State committed to taking a decision in the next four to six months on compulsory food waste reporting by businesses. I encourage him to do so before Dissolution. I also encourage the Minister to look at accelerating the regulation of insects as a high-protein source—something that has now been approved by the EU. Insects can be reared on organic waste streams, including food waste, to create a domestic alternative to soy imports for animal feed. It is potentially a tremendous way to have an impact in this area by reducing the millions of tonnes of soy imported for animal feed from countries at risk of deforestation, for example.
One of the key ingredients for food security is healthy soils, which face degradation from increasing droughts, flooding and more intense rainfall brought about by climate change. I welcome the new Government commitment to publish a progress report on the development of a soil health indicator by June. Ensuring that farmers have access to clear information to help to measure the health of their soils, which is a fascinatingly complex subject, is incredibly important, so I am pleased that the Government accepted our recommendation to publish guidance for farmers on soil monitoring. I believe that today the EFRA Committee is publishing the Government response to its report on soil health, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby might refer to in his remarks.
The other key ingredient is water, so I am particularly pleased that the Minister for water is responding to the debate. Food producers need enough of it, and they need it to be clean. My Committee recommended that the Government look holistically at managing water demand so that farmers have enough water in the right place at the right time to be able to feed the nation.
The Government’s commitment to consider more robust water efficiency standards is welcome as a demand control measure, as is their commitment to a third round of the water management grant later this year. We pointed out that the scheme will benefit only a small proportion of farmers in England. Will the Minister state what proportion of farmers he expects to benefit from the water management grant, specifically for establishing on-farm reservoirs and for precision irrigation technology to help British farming to become more water-efficient and better prepared for hotter, drier summers?
Turning briefly to consumption, what we choose to eat can have a big impact on the planet, which clearly affects our future food security. The choices that we make now will affect how much choice we have in the future. In response to our report, the Government pointed to Public Health England’s guidance, the Eatwell Guide, stating:
“Given that most people in the UK do not currently follow a diet in line with government dietary recommendations, improvements in population dietary intakes in line with the Eatwell Guide would go a significant way to meeting sustainability targets.”
All very laudable stuff. What will the Government do to encourage more people to follow this beneficial guidance? Surely if it is well-evidenced advice, the Government should be making more of it.
One landmark piece of work that we are still waiting for is the Government’s land use framework. Time and again, we heard in our inquiry that optimising the way English land is used for all the many demands required of it is the central issue to maintaining food security in a changing environment. When he gave evidence last July, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries promised us that the land use framework, already delayed, would be published by the end of 2023. Sadly, the Government are now telling my Committee that it will be published in 2024. Will the Minister update the House on when in 2024 we can expect the land use framework to be published? Will he undertake, as my Committee recommended, to publish the Government’s methodologies alongside the land use framework when it eventually appears, to give confidence that the framework will contribute both to maintaining food security and to the Government’s net zero and biodiversity targets?
The other hugely relevant innovation brought in by the Government are the environmental land management schemes, or ELMS. The Government described those schemes as being founded on the principle of public money for public goods, but Ministers have declined our reasonable invitation to designate food security as a public good—as the Minister will be aware, the NFU has been calling for that for some time. Will the Minister explain why?
I did not come here today to be all doom and gloom. The environmental challenges facing our food system are worrying, but they are also an opportunity for the best of technological innovation. Our Committee has been keen to examine over this Parliament how technology can help us to address to environmental and climate changes that we face. Modern technology—be it the use of artificial intelligence and drones to pinpoint the use of fertiliser, the use or methane-suppressing food additives, or alternative proteins such as insects, now mostly grown in labs—opens up new ways of producing food while minimising the environmental impact. I am sure that we will hear a lot about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
In response to our recommendations on expanding the incentives for farmers to take technological innovations, the Government increased the farming equipment and technology grant to a maximum of £50,000 per farm, and increased its overall budget to £70 million, which I welcome.
The fact that three Select Committees are here to represent recent reports on different aspects of food security shows how important the subject is. We are not alone: the International Development Committee is in  the middle on an inquiry on hunger and nutrition. I thank the Liaison Committee for granting time for the debate, and I thank the Government for their response to the Environmental Audit Committee report on environmental change and food security. I commend the report to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Robert Goodwill: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I served for some time. I was pleased that he referred to my Committee’s report on soil health and spoke about baselines on where we are with our soils. A lot of soil testing work has been done in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, although many farmers, particularly arable farmers, are making great strides in testing their soils, none of that data is uploaded to any Government website, and there is very little data on the amount of carbon in our soils and on what we can do to improve the situation.
This is not the first time that this House has debated food security. Perhaps the most contentious issue dominating politics in the 19th century was the balance to be struck between protecting the interests of British farmers and landowners, and the need to provide cheap food to the workers in factories and mills in the industrial revolution. Lord Liverpool introduced the corn laws in 1815, preventing the import of wheat under 80 shillings a quarter, or £20 a tonne. In today’s money, that is double the price that wheat hit after the invasion of Ukraine, although the production stimulated by those protections meant that the actual price of wheat, and hence bread, never reached those dizzy heights.
My own family farm—to which I draw the House’s attention in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—started business four years after the repeal of the corn laws by Robert Peel’s Administration in 1846. The workers’ cause, led by Cobden and Bright, had prevailed over the landowners’ vested interests. The era of free trade did not submerge the country under cheap imports from the empire and new world, however. British farmers enjoyed a golden era in the 1870s, helped to some extent by the mass exodus of workers from the prairies to make their fortunes in the 1849 California gold rush, and by the little matter of the American civil war between 1861 and 1865. I make these points because of the parallels we see today, as we move out of a protectionist European Union into a new era of free trade. We should not forget that it was only the submarine blockades of the first and second world wars that brought into sharp focus the need for domestic food production. Two years ago, following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we once again learned the same lesson.
We face a whole new challenge today: not only recognising the need for domestically produced food, but striking the right balance between food production and the environmental goals we need to achieve. In many cases, those goals can be delivered together, such as through the sustainable farming incentive, but in others, they are mutually exclusive. Surely, for example, it makes   no sense to cover our most productive agricultural land with solar energy arrays. We can, of course, also produce biofuels on our land: wheat is used to make the ethanol in E10 petrol, and vegetable oil is used for diesel engines. However, if that means indirect land use changes in other parts of the world where forest is being cleared to create agricultural land, are we really delivering on our overall greenhouse gas obligations?
Perhaps the most contentious issue is that of the uplands—the moors and dales in places such as North Yorkshire and the Lake district. Henry Dimbleby MBE, who was then lead of the national food strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence to my Committee. His report is well worth a read, and I agree with much of its content. It correctly states that the 20% of farmland that is in the uplands contributes only 1% or 2% of the calories produced in this country, and suggests that that land would be better utilised by planting trees to lock up carbon. We have already seen that happening in the west of Scotland, with serious consequences for local communities and employment, and the Welsh Government have approached it in a very crude way: 10% of land is to be planted with trees, regardless of the size and viability of the remaining farming business. Farmers have made their opposition to that policy very clear in Cardiff. I worry when I hear that Labour in Wales is a blueprint for what will happen in England if Labour were to get into power after the election. It is disappointing that there are no Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber today to give me their view of the future. Where are they?
We need to strike the right balance between the need to deliver our carbon obligations and the need to support rural communities, while also protecting the landscapes that merit national park designation. My Committee’s report on food security was launched in July 2022, as a direct response to market volatility following the invasion of Ukraine. It was published in July 2023, and the Government responded in November last year. We also looked at food poverty, extending free school meal provision, and the junk food cycle that contributes to rising obesity levels. We made 18 recommendations, which can be read on pages 45 to 49 of the report by those who wish to do so.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow referred to, we were delighted that the Government have already adopted a number of those recommendations. I was particularly pleased that the Farm to Fork summit will, as we suggested, now be an annual event, alongside the publication of an annual UK food security report. In February, the Government announced that they would publish an annual food security index, in line with our recommendation in paragraph 29 of the report. I look forward to other aspects of that report being taken up, particularly the response to John Shropshire’s independent review of labour shortages.
I have two specific points that I would like to raise. First, do sugar beet and oilseed rape have a future in the UK? This is particularly relevant given the report on pollinators. The science is clear that neonicotinoids have a profound effect on bee behaviour and hive viability when those insects are exposed to them. Sugar beet is susceptible to a number of virus diseases, including virus yellows. The vector for those viruses is the peach potato aphid, Myzus persicae. If an aphid feeds on a beet plant, it transmits the virus in much the same way   a mosquito transmits malaria. One bite is enough, and the earlier in the season the infection takes place, the more devastating the effect on the yield. In cold winters, there are fewer over-wintered aphids and the risk is low, but if—as in the current season—the scientists at Rothamsted determine that the risk is high, the use of a neonic seed dressing is sanctioned. If that option were not available, sugar beet production in the UK would quickly become unviable. We would have to import beet sugar from countries that have not banned those seed dressings, or cane sugar from tropical areas.
The point is that bees and other pollinators feed on nectar and pollen. Sugar beet is a biennial, and is harvested before it flowers—I know that DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser is looking at this issue. Is there a risk to bees from soil residues that may be taken up by flowering plants, either as weeds in the sugar beets or in subsequent years? The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee report calls for more research on pesticide accumulation in terrestrial environments.
Oilseed rape—those yellow fields that we see in the spring—has declined by about 60% in the UK. That is because of the cabbage stem flea beetle, which can decimate the crop as it emerges, and the larvae that hatch can also be a problem in the spring. My farm still grows rape, but like many of my neighbours, this could be our last year. Seed dressings only need to work against this pest in the first three or four weeks of drilling in August. The crop does not flower until April or May the following year. What evidence is there that there is a risk to bees more than six months after the chemical seed dressing has been used, and just as importantly, what will be the effect on pollinators if we lose this important source of pollen and nectar early in the season? I know some beekeepers worry, as I do, about the law of intended consequences coming into play. Indeed, in the absence of the neonic seed dressings, my own rape crop was sprayed five times with synthetic pyrethroids in the month or six weeks after drilling. This is not a chemical that is bee-friendly, although farmers obviously take the precaution of spraying when the bees are not flying.
For many, the only real alternative crop to sugar beet or rape would be field beans or combining peas. The economics of growing these profitably are not good. Perhaps the Minister would consider including these crops as stewardship options and eligible for support to reduce our reliance on imported soil, which we know has an effect on the planet globally.
Secondly, what will be the effect of the wet autumn and winter combined with depressed cereal prices on our future food security in the United Kingdom? Around 30% of our wheat crop either did not get drilled last autumn or has rotted in the field. With payment for stewardship options looking increasingly attractive and predictable, does the Minister share my worries that increasing areas of land may be entered into multi-annual options such as overwintered bird food, or pollen and nectar, and that we may be short of wheat in future years, or is there a risk that some schemes may even be over- subscribed? Of course, we have other schemes. There is certainly an offset scheme in my area, where quite a large amount of land has been taken out of production because of a housing developer needing to offset a particular biodiversity.
In conclusion, our farmers produce some of the best- quality food in the world. We need to improve the amount of food we produce here, not least because of the environmental impact of international transport, particularly air freight of out-of-season products. We can also deliver the environmental gains that the environmental land management scheme incentivises, but that loss must not be at the expense of domestic production or result in carbon emissions elsewhere.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

Greg Clark: It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Select Committee Chairs, my right hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who spoke expertly and forensically about some of the results of their inquiries.
One of the pleasures of chairing the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee is that we are spoilt for choice with the range of fascinating subjects into which to inquire, and on which the world’s experts are only too happy to give us tutorials in public for other Members and the wider public to see, so it is very difficult to choose particular subjects from among those we have in mind. We are enthusiastic about most of the subjects we choose, as we are finding new technologies that can make huge positive differences to the world. So it is unusual for the title of an inquiry we have conducted to have a slightly minor key element to it. We talk about “Insect decline”, and that is because the members of my Committee are worried about the regression or backward steps that we have unfortunately seen as a country in biodiversity, particularly with respect to insects, over many decades.
Our report reminds us that insects, and indeed all other invertebrates, are significant not only for their intrinsic importance as part of life on earth and in contributing to the richness of our natural world, but in making an essential contribution to the supply of food, as both my right hon. Friends mentioned. Pollination is the most obvious example, but they also have crucial roles to play in managing crop pests—I think that is a euphemism for consuming crop pests—maintaining the health of the soil and recycling nutrients from waste.
The first thing to say is that although data is surprisingly patchy, such data as we have and its interpretation by experts show that UK insects have indeed been in decline. Whether that is measured by abundance of insects, which is the number of insects found in a particular place; the diversity of insects, which is how many different species are present in a particular place; or the distribution of insects, which is the number of places in which insects can be found, all three measures indicate a decline in insects in the UK.
Even though the UK is one of the best-monitored countries in the world when it comes to insects, with surveys such as the Rothamsted insect survey, which began in 1964 and the UK butterfly monitoring scheme, which started in 1976, the wealth of knowledge that we have tends to be concentrated into relatively few insect groups, principally moths, butterflies, aphids and bees. The bee is a well-studied species, but of the 2,000 species  of bee in Europe, more than half have little or no data associated with them to establish their conservation status, whether that is vulnerable, threatened or of least concern. Our report recommends that the funding authorities, such as UK Research and Innovation should give greater attention to long-term monitoring by improving budgets. The UK pollinator monitoring survey has a budget of only £216,000 a year for such a vital piece of longitudinal information. The celebrated Rothamsted insect survey has a budget that equates to £440,000 a year. These foundational studies are much less well-funded than many other studies that we see.
We also recommend that monitoring takes place over the long term, beyond the five-year duration of the typical research grant, and the reasons for that are obvious. If we want to see trends that take account of the year-to-year variations in the climate that we inevitably experience, we need that long-term commitment. As well as maintaining the coverage of the existing surveys, we should look to institute their equivalent covering a wider range of species, including those not currently covered.
Knowing the trends on abundance is one thing—it is important to proceed on the basis of evidence—but we want to halt decline. We have established that there is decline, and we should halt and reverse the decline that has taken place, so policy, as well as data, is important. The national pollinator strategy that many Members in this debate will be familiar with is an excellent model for that, and my Committee strongly commends it, but as I said a few moments ago, pollination and pollinators are not the only contribution that insects and wider invertebrates make to our ecology. We recommend that the approach of the national pollinator strategy should be applied to a national invertebrate strategy, containing accountability targets for non-pollinating, but agriculturally beneficial invertebrates.
Even within species such as the bee, there have been concentrations on honeybees, for reasons that are perhaps understandable. Members should not get me wrong—honey beekeeping is important. I am always grateful to my constituent, Mr Lorne Mitchell, who brings me a jar of his delicious honey from Goudhurst every time he comes to my surgery—long may that continue—but honeybees are not the only thing we should worry about. There are more than 270 wild species of bee in the UK, and they need conserving, as well as promoting the pollination advantages of honeybees. We call on DEFRA—I hope the Minister will respond positively to this—to expand the remit of the National Bee Unit to include a focus on wild bee health as well as honey bees.
In this work, it is not just professional entomologists and researchers in our universities and institutions such as Rothamsted who are important, because amateur entomologists have always played an important role in collecting data for research. Every Member will know about the data collections that we have, in some cases going back many decades and even centuries, from amateur enthusiasts who have meticulously compiled data in particular areas. In some respects that is becoming more popular. In the Big Butterfly Count, over 100,000 citizen scientists, as I think we can call them, take part annually. Some amateur entomologists are real experts. In Tunbridge Wells Dr Ian Beavis is an institution, with an encyclopaedic and profound knowledge of the insects of the High Wealds that surpasses that of any professor. Our Committee believes that funding authorities should  be able to allow funding to go to experts of that type, who may not be employed in universities or research institutions, and that they should be able to participate in conferences, publications, and symposia through an outreach of the grants programme to provide opportunities for them.
Both my right hon. Friends referred to many of the agricultural policies that their Committees have looked into and promoted to the Government. My Committee shares the approval that both their Committees give to the statutory targets to halt and reverse species extinction and decline, but we believe they are too narrowly focused. For example, we believe that as well as having a red list of particular species that are at risk of extinction, as we have at the moment, there should also be a baseline list consisting of a wider range of insects and other invertebrates, so that we can monitor progress over time against those baselines, sometimes even before species become a cause for concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke about the role of pesticides. That is an important matter and, as he said, we have called for more research to be done. We share the concern of many Members of the House, including those on the Environmental Audit Committee, that the Government are yet to publish a revised national action plan for sustainable pesticide use. That has now been delayed by more than six years since an update was due in February 2018. We believe that an updated plan should include a target for reducing pesticide use in urban and suburban areas, as well as in agricultural settings, following the good practice that we heard in evidence to our inquiry from organisations such as the Royal Horticultural Society about phasing down the use of pesticides in gardens, as it is doing in its important and celebrated garden at Wisley.
Finally, much has been said about stewardship schemes such as the environmental land management scheme that is replacing the EU’s common agricultural policy. There is a big opportunity for the scheme to be beneficial for biodiversity, and specifically as a vehicle for insect decline to be targeted, halted and reversed. We would like integrated pest management, which is a much more holistic and natural way of suppressing pests, to be advanced, tested and deployed as pilots through the early implementation of ELMS. If that is shown to be effective, it should be incorporated as specific actions within ELMS. In promoting biodiversity, not only are we exercising stewardship over our precious natural environment—something every Member of the House is concerned to do—but we can make an important contribution to our economy and national security by ensuring that our supplies of food are more resilient. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised, and to the contributions of other hon. Members.

Jo Gideon: I thank my right hon. Friends the Select Committee Chairs for their excellent reports on food security and for securing the debate. It is such an important topic, and one that I have been passionate about for a long time, so it is right that it is at the forefront of the political agenda.
Our food system now produces an unbelievable array of foods, and we produce almost twice as many calories per person on this planet as we did back in the 1940s,  but the food system that we have created has completely dominated planetary ecosystems. If we look at the food system’s impact, we see that it is by far the biggest cause of biodiversity loss, deforestation, water stress, freshwater pollution and destruction of aquatic life—and, together with the energy system, one of the two big causes of climate change.
Food security depends on global peace and stability, and a healthy planet and population. We have been facing a threat to all three of those. We see disruptions to the supply chain caused by the pandemic and risks triggered by the climate emergency and conflicts such as Putin’s war in Ukraine. We know that food shortages lead to political unrest, that famine triggers mass migration, and that climate change and biodiversity loss have led to the depletion of our ecosystem. We need to look again at how we rebuild a strong food system to ensure that everyone has access to nutritious and affordable food; how we can safeguard our countryside and restore the environment; how we can offer jobs to our communities; and how we can reduce the health problems caused by bad diets.
The need to be self-sustaining in fruit and vegetables is becoming even greater. While that is a challenge, domestic food production has significant benefits for both our health and environment by reducing air miles, and for the economy by enabling farmers and small food businesses to thrive. Currently as a country we produce 63% of all the food we need and 73% of the food that we can grow or rear in the UK for all or part of the year. Those figures have changed little in the last 20 years, and they mask some of the self-sufficiency challenges in particular food groups, with only 13% of fresh fruit and 50% of vegetables consumed in the UK being home-grown.
Domestically, the Government have committed to maintaining—not enhancing—the level of food that we produce. We should set our sights higher and look at growing, quite literally, our local food production. Investing in the latest technology and growing systems can extend the availability of British produce for more months of the year. For example, arguably the most iconic product—the British strawberry—has seen yields double in the last  20 years and the season extend to nearly nine months.
We should put more emphasis on localism to provide a food system that is resilient and delivers a vibrant, cyclical local economy. Backing our farmers is so important, which is why I am grateful that the Prime Minister announced measures and funding at the National Farmers Union conference to invest in home-grown opportunities for food innovation and to boost productivity and resilience in the sector.
As consumers, we also have a role to play when considering our buying habits. I recently cooked a community meal where all the vegetables were donated by local producers. One local grower, Derek Hulme, who is a three-times Guinness world record breaking producer of giant vegetables, provided courgettes the size of marrows. While they looked impressive and certainly tasted good, I reflected that they would have failed the size test in the local supermarket, where standardisation of products is valued. Is it not time for us to accept that perfect fruit and vegetables are an artificial construct that we have accepted without question for far too long? That certainly is not beneficial to our health or food security.
We waste huge quantities of natural produce that is perfectly good but not up to the exacting standards required by leading supermarkets. In recent years, we have seen the introduction of a category of “wonky” fruit and veg, which allows less manicured products to find their way to market. But is it not time to welcome the idea that “wonky” does not have to be a separate range? Just as humans come in all shapes and sizes, carrots and potatoes grow in interesting shapes. We must look at our local food supply chain and think more about what we can do to reduce waste.
The current impact of labour shortages has been described as the
“principal factor limiting UK food production”.
This is not just about seasonality but about workers throughout the whole supply chain. It is truly tragic to see food left rotting in fields for the lack of people to help harvest it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing to prioritise the country’s long-term food security and ensure that the food supply chain has access to sufficient labour, including from overseas, and can realise its growth potential. Failure to do so places at risk the achievement of our self-sufficiency target and broader food security.
As highlighted in the reports we are discussing, food production and environmental improvement can and must go hand in hand. We are already seeing the benefits of environmental schemes, such as actions through the sustainable farming incentive to support the creation of flower-rich buffers that help pollinators, which in turn produce better yields. I remember learning about the role of pollinators in science lessons at school. Public interest often focuses on the charismatic insects such as bees and butterflies. I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its recent report on insect decline and food security, which refers to the less-known, harder-to-identify and for many people unappealing insect species that play vital ecological roles, particularly in creating a productive landscape for food production. They require equal attention.
Dung beetles, for instance, play a vital role in maintaining pasture that livestock feed on by fertilising and aerating soils and helping to reduce greenhouse emissions. Those ecosystem services have been estimated to save the UK cattle industry up to £367 million a year. Disruptions to their populations have negative impacts on both soil health and long-term food production in these areas. It is positive to hear of farmers investing in the foundations of food production—healthy soil, water and biodiverse ecosystems.
In the UK, 70% of land is farmed, so agricultural practices have a major influence on insect populations. The lack of data and understanding of things such as the impact of pesticides on insect species is poor. We know that something has to be measured in order for there to be effective solutions to address it, so I support calls for a more comprehensive approach in the review of the national pollinator strategy, due this year, that includes provisions for invertebrates that carry out other important ecological roles, particularly relating to food security.
The environmental improvement plan sets out a  target to bring at least 40% of England’s agricultural soil into sustainable management through farming  schemes by 2028, increasing to 60% by 2030. We need to continue to be ambitious and ensure that food productivity and long-term food security are at the heart of the Government’s priorities.

Natalie Elphicke: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), I thoroughly enjoy our Kentish honey, so I welcomed his encouragement of pollinators. May I start by putting on record my thanks to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for their important work? I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the vital issue of food security.
Food security is important, as are other types of security, such as energy security or our national defence. Representing the area that is both guardian and gateway to our great nation for the European continent, I know that it is vital that there are robust measures and controls in place to protect our national interest. As outlined by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Government’s failure to bring forward an effective land use framework in time or an ambitious internal food strategy will leave our country continuing to be dependent on food imports.
The Environmental Audit Committee has reported that over 40% of the UK’s food is imported, and more than a quarter of that comes from the EU and wider Europe. A lot of that comes in through the port of Dover. Meat is the second highest import in our country, with a value of around £7 billion and an export value of around £2 billion the other way. It is of the utmost importance, when it comes to food security, that appropriate and effective checks are implemented and funded. The Environmental Audit Committee has noted:
“Since…food security depends on some degree of imports, it is vital that environmental harms are not exported abroad.”
A failure in import biosecurity on food exports, such as in the case of African swine flu, would decimate our domestic production capability for years, and clearly it would affect our export markets as a result.
In spite of biosecurity warnings and concerns from me, the EFRA Committee, Dover Port Health Authority and businesses operating across the channel routes, the Government remain steadfast in their decision to do the wrong thing when it comes to protecting biosecurity at the Dover border. The Government have been formally and persistency warned over the past two years that, as we have heard, Russia’s war on Ukraine and global food price spikes and constraints have impacted the quality and availability of food. That has also resulted in increased biosecurity risks, as we have been informed.
Food producers and customs businesses have echoed some of the concerns made by the Committees. One customs business wrote to me in scathing terms:
“Throughout this saga DEFRA and the Cabinet Office have been disingenuous at best, arrogant certainly but in the care of UK human and animal health, appear to be derelict in their duty. The blatant attempt to cover up scandalous spending and shall we say misdirection regarding safety, removing the internationally recognised safeguard of within the port of entry’s accepted legal area for BCP checks.”
It goes on to say that there will be an increase in
“biosecurity breaches and, for the less compliant a great opportunity to undermine all those seeking to do the right and safe thing.”
To what was this business referring? It was referring to the Government’s new security control regime, which puts the Dover port checks 22 miles away in Ashford. That is the same distance as from Dover to France —a long way.
The EFRA Committee has written to the Government to ask for assurances about biosecurity management along that route. Many Members of the House will have heard me speak about that route as being prone to traffic congestion from time to time. It is a “single point of failure” road where, from time to time, no traffic moves in either direction. Yet 22 miles away is where the Government have put these new controls, even though there is a ready-to-use, state-of-the-art border control facility raring to go on the Dover frontline.
In the next few days, if not today, the Government will table a statutory instrument to underpin their new biosecurity structure. I want to draw it to the House’s attention because it reflects on the important work of the Committees. There will not be an automatic consideration by a Committee of this fundamental change to how our borders are managed, because this measure, which will weaken future border controls and our country’s biosecurity, is to be laid under the negative procedure. We will therefore not have an opportunity to debate it.
This new statutory instrument covers animal health, plant health and genetically modified organisms—important for us all to keep an eye on. It also covers poisons, plant protection products—pesticides and the like—and other pollutants. It will remove the requirement for these checks to be done at a location immediately proximate to the border. That will be the case for the first time because currently, under retained EU law that our Government confirmed after we left the EU, there is a requirement for proximity—the nearest place possible to make these important checks. I am sure we would all agree that it is very sensible to do border checks at the border—why would we not?
The new statutory instrument will elevate visual and local character at a border point of entry over and above standards of protecting goods and food. It will elevate both visual and environmental issues over and above biosecurity and national interest food security management. It contains no requirement for there to be effective biosecurity controls between the port of entry and the place of checking. Just to remind Members, that is 22 miles of open, or sometimes congested or closed, Kentish road. There is no role for the current port health authority to inform the decision that will be made. It will be the decision of the new port authority, which in this case will be not one but two local authorities away.
That matters because at the Dover frontline we have a really remarkable, effective and committed port health team. It has brought to the Government’s attention in formal reports over the last two years—not once and not twice, but several times—that biosecurity risks have increased and continue to be of great significance at the border. I pay tribute to its work and believe it should be better supported. It said, and this is a matter I have raised in debates in this House over the last two years, that
“To not mobilise the facility”—
the existing facility at Dover—
“would be an act of negligence that would significantly increase the risk of devastating consequences of another animal, health or food safety catastrophe.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the importance of controlling pesticides, and he is absolutely right. But we cannot just control  pesticides here, because of the very significant role of product coming into our country through imports. Let me refer to just one example. One item that was stopped by the port health team at the Dover port was pesticides on eastern European flax seeds, of the sort we might sprinkle on cereal. They were found to exceed the maximum level for UK health safety. In other words, they were dangerous to human life. That is illegal for the UK market and, given our own focus in the UK on wanting to improve the position on pesticides, it is unquestionable that we do not want product to come into this country that is both a danger to human health and could potentially damage our farming and food producers.
Biosecurity is a real concern. For example, on African swine fever the Government have said:
“The disease poses a significant risk to our pig herd and our long-term ability to export pork and pork products around the globe.”
So on food security we need robust measures on African swine fever in particular, because it is a known concern in terms of animal disease and its effects are devastating where they occur. In spite of that, the Government decided to slash African swine fever funding at the port of Dover and significantly reduce its capability to do checks. That does not protect our farmers or our food security. That decision puts our country and its farming at risk. I urgently ask the Government to reconsider that decision.
Food security is not just about what we grow; it is about protecting the very food on our table, and our farmers and food producers too. We cannot secure our food and food production without having strong borders and effective controls. I am grateful for all the work of the Committees, in particular the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is doing such important work on this issue. I thank all Members for their contributions today.

Neil Hudson: It is a privilege and honour to speak in this very important debate.
Food security is part of national security. It is a vital issue. The fact that three major Select Committees tabled this debate to the Liaison Committee shows its importance for our country. I am very proud to represent a constituency with a large farming footprint, both as the Member of Parliament and as a proud member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
I pay tribute first to our fantastic farmers and growers up and down the land who produce the highest-quality food to the highest production standards and look after the precious environment, and to the bodies, such as the National Farmers Union, that champion the sector. Producing food and looking after the environment can and should go hand in hand, and our UK farmers are the best in the world in that regard.
Our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at this issue directly in producing our report “Food security”, and it has examined other aspects in studies including our ongoing study entitled “Fairness in the food supply chain” and previous inquiries such as “Moving animals across borders”, “Labour in the food supply chain”, “COVID-19 and food supply”, and “Soil  health”, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who chairs the Committee.
The challenges to our farmers and growers are huge. The importance of how we produce our food has been brought into sharp relief first during the pandemic, and now with the war in Ukraine. In Britain we have seen our excellent farmers and growers battle through this geopolitical context, dealing with factors such as extreme weather events, whether they involve a lack of water or flooding, and showing real tenacity in delivering for  our country.
We all remember the startling headlines and the shortages on our shelves at the beginning of the pandemic. The concept of key workers was very much in our minds at that time. First and foremost we thought of NHS workers, but we also thought of the importance of all those involved in the food supply chain—farmers, growers, vets, drivers and abattoir workers. They were classified as key workers, and it is important to remember that.
The tragic illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has again brought this issue into sharp focus. Again our producers face mounting challenges: increased fuel and energy costs, increased animal feed costs and increased fertiliser costs, as well as a lack of supply of fertiliser. Bolstering our food security is an urgent task, given inflation costs and the challenges around the world such as the war in Ukraine. We must think hard about becoming more self-sufficient. We produce about 60% of what we consume, and I firmly believe that we need to produce more.
Fertiliser became an important issue as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Select Committee took a close interest in that, suggesting that the UK needed to be more resilient. The fertiliser company  CF Fertilisers UK has mothballed its Ince plant and ended ammonia production in its Billingham plant.  A by-product of fertiliser production and ammonia production is carbon dioxide, which, as we know, is vital for our food and beverage industry, but which is also vital to the process of slaughtering pigs and poultry. I strongly believe that the Government need to keep a watching brief on how we can secure a resilient supply of fertiliser and carbon dioxide.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) mentioned, biosecurity is pivotal to food security, and it is also pivotal to national security. As a veterinary surgeon, I have seen how crucial it is, and not just for our nation but for our world. I started my journey into politics as a veterinary surgeon on the frontline, witnessing and supervising the culls during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001, and I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.
As we have heard, African swine fever is advancing upwards through the continent of Europe. It is yet to reach the UK, and I pray that it never does, but if it does it will be catastrophic for our country—catastrophic for our animal health in terms of the pig sector, but also for human mental health. Another major inquiry undertaken by our Committee, entitled “Rural mental health”, examined the challenges and pressures faced by people working in rural communities and the food production chains, such as animal disease outbreaks, extreme weather events and rural isolation. In the event of a catastrophic animal health outbreak such as swine fever, the mental health implications for people across the country would be devastating.
I pay tribute to the Government and the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We are facing many threats, including, as I have said, African swine fever, but there are also ongoing threats such as avian influenza, which is still bubbling away. I know that Ministers and officials are currently very exercised by the threat from the bluetongue virus; we have seen cases in Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk and Surrey, and when the Culicoides midge season arrives we will be under real threat. There are also ongoing, chronic threats from diseases such as bovine tuberculosis.

Philip Dunne: I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but he has just referred to TB and the mental health implications of animal health crises for our farmers. I would like to mention to the House that, on my own farm, we have just gone down with TB for the second time in six months. We have had 13 cows in calf—some have just calved, and some are about to calf—that were reactors. We do not yet know whether they were positive or were just reactors—in other words, whether they received false positives.
There was confusion between DEFRA and the vets about whether those animals could be taken to the slaughterhouse or had to be shot on farm. DEFRA was telling us that they had to go to the slaughterhouse. It turned out that had we done that, we would have been in breach of the law, because one cannot take an animal to a slaughterhouse within a month of its giving birth. Consequently, the animals had to be shot on farm, including calves and pregnant cows on the brink of giving birth. The mental health impact on the farmers who have to look after those animals is very significant. At this time of the year, this terrible disease affects many people.

Neil Hudson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that powerful testimony. In the EFRA Committee’s rural mental health inquiry, we took similarly powerful evidence on the implications of TB when there is an outbreak, but also when farmers are involved in testing. There are implications for vets and farmers while they are waiting for the results to come through, and from what happens when there are positive results, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
The APHA is part of our frontline in protecting our biosecurity. It has its headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey, and the EFRA Committee visited the institution, which needs a radical refurbishment and redevelopment. The Government are committed to that, but I urge them to press ahead at full steam. It requires a lot of money— £2.8 billion. Some £1.2 billion has been allocated so far, but the EFRA Committee took evidence from the chief veterinary officer, who pressed the case for how important it is that the APHA is redeveloped. I hope that the Minister takes that message away. I know that DEFRA is on the same page and is making the case to the Treasury that we need to spend a fair amount of money now to prevent a future crisis.
We have talked today about some of the international challenges that our farmers and growers have faced, not least the ongoing situations in Ukraine and the middle east. As we have heard, Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe. It is important for supplies of grain and sunflower, but also fertiliser. What we have seen throughout that crisis is a choking of supply through the Black sea, and the deliberate and cynical decision by Putin to pull  Russia out of the UN’s Black sea grain initiative, leading to its subsequent collapse. That has choked off supplies to the rest of the world. What we have seen as a consequence—I am sure this is intended by Putin—are food shortages and potential famine in the developing world. As a country, we need to be cognisant of that. It is so important that the Black sea route gets back up to speed.
The actions of the Houthis in the Red sea have affected trade and the free passage of vessels, which has implications for the security of shipping and trade routes. Costs have increased due to diversions around the Cape of Good Hope, adding an extra 14 days to journeys and sometimes upwards of an extra £1 million for a vessel’s voyage. That will have unintended consequences for the price and availability of food and other supplies. Securing the passage of goods throughout the world is part of global security, and we need to think about the Black sea, the Red sea, the Panama canal and the Suez canal to make sure that such routes are viable.
Amid all these challenges, I am proud that our Government are supporting the sector. We have a Prime Minister, a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Government who are fully aware of the issues and challenges facing our farmers and growers, and I know the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), personally feels it too.
I was pleased to attend the Prime Minister’s Farm to Fork summit. Food production and food security being brought into the heart of No. 10 is an important statement to the country. It is important that we are maintaining the farming budget for England at £2.4 billion a year through this Parliament and, coming into this election year, we need clarity that that level of funding will continue. Farmers and growers need to be able to plan, so we need to have security.
Our horticulture and agriculture have been bolstered by additional visas, allowing people to come in to harvest crops. That has been expanded to the poultry sector, but we need to keep a watching brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) talked about animals being put down on farms. In the pig sector, where we have had labour shortages in the abattoir and processing sectors over the past couple of years, upwards of 60,000 healthy pigs were culled on farms. That is awful food wastage, but it is also harrowing and incredibly distressing for the people who reared those pigs. We need to keep a watching brief so that those situations never happen again.
Our Committee and the EAC have called for food security to be reviewed annually. I am pleased that the Government have announced an annual food security index that will underpin the food security report, which is an important statement. The last food security report was in December 2021, prior to the Ukraine war. We need annual check-ups, and I am pleased that the Government have responded to the Select Committees’ reports.
The Government are also very aware that good farming and food production and a healthy environment go hand in hand, and that the ELM scheme is pivotal in supporting both those goals. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has announced an expansion of ELMS in recent months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) mentioned the situation in Wales. If that is going to be Labour’s blueprint for England, there is a real concern that 10% of food-producing land will be diverted to planting trees and that another 10% will be diverted to wildlife habitats. That is a noble intention, but the idea of forcing farmers to take 20% of their food-producing land out of production is deeply alarming. We have talked about TB policy, and the statistics for cattle herds in Wales and England show that the TB situation is worse in Wales. We need to be cognisant and follow the science. We need evidence-based policymaking to control the dreadful threat of bovine TB.
I congratulate the Government on their important Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The Act, which some of the reports touch on, allows the technology to produce climate-resistant and disease-resistant crops, as well as disease-resistant animals and birds, which will reduce the need for drugs and antimicrobials and will indirectly help public health. It will help animal health, bird health and public health, and it will support the environment. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited the world-leading Rothamsted Research to look at its work.
I support the Government’s animal health and welfare pathway, their legislation to ban the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter, and their £4 million fund for small abattoirs. Those measures will help animals to be produced, reared, slaughtered and ultimately consumed locally, which is a win for local communities and for animal welfare, because animals will not have to be transported long distances. We have the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in our policymaking. I am proud that our Conservative Government have done that.
The Government paused their trade negotiations with Canada, which was an important symbolic statement. They said, “No, we have red lines on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork and chlorine-washed products. These are red-line products that are illegal in this country, and we will not import them.” I congratulate the Government on standing firm, because that says to the world, “This is where we stand and these are our values. If you want to trade with us, meet our standards.”
We cannot shy away from the need to do more to bolster our food security, domestic production and standards. The environmental land management schemes are good measures. We must ensure that all types of farmer are fairly rewarded, including commoners, tenants and upland farmers. Our Committee has looked at the issue and we have been calling for that. We also need to make sure that we are training up the next generation of people to go into farming by supporting our land-based educational sector. My colleagues have talked about food waste and we need to tackle that. We also need to think about fairness in the food supply chain, which our Select Committee is very much looking at.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all our farmers, growers and producers, and everyone else involved in producing food in our country. Doing that and looking after the environment go hand in hand. We are a beacon to the world in our production standards. This area is vital for our communities and it is so important that our Government continue to support it, and I commend our reports to the House.

Theresa Villiers: I wish to start by thanking all three Committees for their excellent reports and for securing this important debate. Let me also highlight some shareholdings in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Food and drink is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing some £127 billion to our economy. The quality of what we produce is recognised throughout the world and plays a significant role in our global brand. As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I know that farming is an integral part of our national identity, helping to bind our Union of nations together. The value of our upland farmers is particularly keenly felt across the nations and regions, and I pay tribute to them and all farmers, and indeed everyone involved in the food sector.
Clearly, farming is not just a job; it is a cultural identity at the heart of our rural communities. As we have heard, the role that farmers perform goes far beyond the food they produce; crucially, they are custodians of our natural environment and our iconic landscapes. Events of recent years have emphasised the huge importance of food security to every single one of us. A massive Government effort was focused on preparing for our EU exit, then on maintaining food supplies during the pandemic and, most recently, on dealing with the impact of the Ukraine war. In the face of all those challenges, the UK food supply chain has shown itself to have great resilience.
However, as the Select Committee reports show, further vital matters still need to be addressed, including by tackling the food price inflation of recent years. I really welcome the progress we are seeing on that, with yesterday’s fall in the overall rate of inflation. We also need measures to ensure that farmers get a fair price for what they produce, and it is good to have the Prime Minister’s assurance that the Groceries Code Adjudicator will continue as an independent body and not be merged into the Competition and Markets Authority.
Thirdly, we have to reduce carbon emissions from agriculture if we are to meet our net zero commitments and ensure that we transition to farming methods that give more space for nature. That includes tackling the serious problems we have with insects, which were highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Much depends on ELMS, which are replacing the common agricultural policy. We need to achieve the crucial balance of ensuring that they keep our farms viable and profitable, while securing public goods on nature and climate.
When I was Environment Secretary, I was dismayed to receive a certain amount of collective responsibility push-back because I wanted to assert that ELMS should help farmers earn a living. Of course they should do that, because a successful and profitable farming sector is crucial for food security, the importance of which every speaker has emphasised this afternoon. In the  role I then played, I felt it was very important to add commitments on food security to what was then the Agriculture Bill, now the Agriculture Act 2020, including the three-yearly report. I welcome the progress towards an annual food security index report publication, as promised by the Prime Minister.
Real progress is being made on improving ELMS and the sustainable farming incentive in response to feedback  and concern expressed by the farming community. I am confident that those programmes will be a huge improvement on the EU ones they replace, and that they will deliver substantial benefits in reducing carbon emissions and protecting nature. In particular, I commend the efforts that are being made to protect peatland habitats and care for hedgerows.
In my view, it would have been extremely difficult to deliver a successful transition to more sustainable farming without maintaining overall levels of funding for farm support. I fought successfully for the Conservative manifesto commitment to do that; I hope we see similar commitments in the forthcoming manifesto. Even with that funding, the transition continues to be complex and difficult. I appeal to Ministers to continue to engage closely with farmers and to make further alterations to ELMS, as and when it is needed in response to changing circumstances and as a greater knowledge base is built up in relation to the schemes. I emphasise that we should not follow the example set in Wales, where their proposals would do significant damage to our farming sector and thus to our food security.
We have one of the biggest science and research budgets in the world, including £168 million for agricultural innovation. All of these reports show that we must increase the uptake of new technology in the farming sector if we are to have a chance of meeting the crucial environmental and biodiversity goals we have been speaking about. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), I think lifting the EU ban on gene editing technology is a tremendous step forward. It could play an important part in boosting our efforts to ensure we can feed an ever-growing global population in a way that is consistent with our commitments on climate and nature.
Finally, if we are to ensure we have resilient supplies of food and thriving agriculture in this country, these domestic goals must be at the heart of our trade policies. Like others who have served as DEFRA Secretary, I had a number of debates with ministerial colleagues on these matters. A key problem with the global trade system is that sanitary and phytosanitary rules are focused on concerns about human health, important as they are, and they are less clear on environmental and animal welfare standards.
I have always argued for permanent quotas to restrict imports in sensitive sectors, where those imports are produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than ours. There is little point imposing high standards at home if we simply import more food as a result, with the outcome that we offshore carbon emissions, biodiversity loss and animal cruelty. For those reasons, I have concerns about aspects of the Australia trade agreement, particularly in relation to the beef sector, but I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement in advance of his Farm to Fork summit that permanent quotas would be used where appropriate. As far as I know, neither of his two immediate predecessors as Prime Minister was ever prepared to say that, and it demonstrates the Prime Minister’s strong commitment to British farming.
Our farmers here in the UK operate to some of the highest environmental and animal welfare standards in the world. We should be proud of them and we should back them. If we are to meet our goals on climate and nature, we must work closely with them to deliver a  successful transition to net zero, while ensuring that everyone continues to have access to the safe, high-quality, affordable food that they need.

Nigel Evans: I shall now call the speakers from the three Front-Bench teams, starting with the SNP spokesperson.

Steven Bonnar: Food security is a term that we have all become more familiar with over recent years. It should mean that a nation can sustainably provide for all its citizens through well-resourced and highly valued agricultural communities. It should mean a farming system that balances fair pay for workers with affordable prices in the shops. And it should mean a food supply chain that is reliable and serves the needs of our struggling planet, as global temperatures rise and populations swell.
I have held this brief for only a short time, but I am already well aware of the endless varying definitions of food security, as was noted by the Environmental Audit Committee in its report. I have also noted the EFRA Committee’s scrutiny of the chosen definition of food security by the Minister of State for Food, Farming and Fisheries, and I join fellow members of that Committee in expressing concern that that Minister is not taking households’ ability to access food into account when considering this vital topic. For us in the SNP, there are some definitions and some areas that take priority. I shall focus on those, because food security, or more appropriately food insecurity, sits at the heart of two defining crises facing the people of Scotland today: the climate crisis, with its impacts of extreme weather on our planet’s ability to provide for growing populations; and the cost of living crisis, which has been turbocharged by this Tory Government’s reckless relationship with the economy.
Many Members will be familiar with the Trussell Trust charity. Within its network are just under 1,400 food banks, with estimates of a further 1,000 or so food banks operating independently across the UK. There are three such food banks in my constituency, which are doing fantastic work in extremely difficult circumstances, and I thank them all for that. The Trussell Trust tells a stark and revealing story.
In 2010, when this Government first assumed office, the Trussell Trust delivered fewer than 300,000 emergency food parcels. Last year, following 13 years of Tory rule, that number had risen to 3 million parcels, 260,000 of which were distributed across Scotland. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions has found that a staggering 4.7 million people in the UK were in food-insecure households. That is 7% of our total population. That same data tells us that, between 2010 and last year, 19% of children lived in households with either low or very low food security. Of those children in poverty, 38% are in households with low or very low food security. That is shameful data and it is a vivid reminder that child poverty has been rising in every single part of the UK every year. That was happening long before the pandemic, and, respectfully, long before any invasion of Ukraine, which highlighted the vulnerability of global supply chains. Long before any of that, there were people in abject poverty in the United Kingdom.
What kind of a legacy is that? It is the Tories’ legacy. We have often heard Members on the Government Benches—some of them have crossed the Floor now—talk about the choices that people make that lead them into abject poverty, insinuating that it is their own fault that they find themselves in such circumstances. However, the reality is that the choices that really matter are political choices. They are choices taken in places such as this. They are choices repeatedly made by this Conservative Government for 14 years now that have allowed 4.2 million children to grow up in poverty.
The Tory approach to problem-solving also summarises the UK’s position on the climate crisis. Both at home and overseas, climate change is already causing chaos for our food supply. Our farmers in Scotland need our support to provide vital resources for our communities. We in the SNP have made repeated calls for such support, as have farmers’ unions and family farmers, but, repeatedly and rather unsurprisingly, those calls and concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of this Government.
As well as trade disruption, this Government’s Brexit obsession has created significant workforce recruitment issues for Scotland’s food and drink sector. Many exports to the EU have fallen, including a 38% fall in fruit and vegetable exports, and a 7% fall in dairy and egg exports between 2019 and 2022. Extreme temperatures across Europe have led to an unprecedent level of wildfires and droughts, and in turn food production has suffered, with shortages and therefore price increases for the likes of olive oil, rice and potatoes, and an increase in animal welfare concerns.
All those points were referenced in all the reports that we are debating. Our food system is close to breaking point. Domestic suppliers are doing their very best in challenging circumstances, but they are being put at a constant competitive disadvantage thanks to the choices of this Government. Food prices in shops are rocketing, forcing more and more families to make impossible decisions about whether they should heat their homes or feed their children.
The SNP Government in Holyrood have chosen an alternative path to that of the Tory Government here in Westminster. In 2023, we created a new dedicated food security unit, tasked with monitoring the Scottish food supply chain for possible disruption. A similar unit is one of the key recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, so I encourage the Government once again to follow Scotland’s lead in that regard. Our vision for agriculture has food right at its heart, making clear our support for farmers and crofters in providing Scotland with healthy food, while ensuring that Scotland meets its world-leading climate and nature restoration targets and outcomes.
Unlike the Tories, the Scottish Government have taken bold steps to address child poverty. The introduction of the Scottish child payment, unique across the UK, has been described by anti-poverty charities as an absolute game changer in the fight against child poverty. The payment has already benefited thousands of families on low incomes all across Scotland. The Scottish Government also provide support worth around £5,000 by the time a child turns six through the best start grant, best start foods, and the Scottish child payment.
Thanks to Westminster, rather than sustainable food production, UK food self-sufficiency is below 60%. Instead of valuing Scottish farmers and crofters, we have a Westminster Government whose new visa rules are threatening farmers’ financial sustainability, and who have repeatedly put us at a competitive disadvantage with reckless, poorly negotiated trade deals and incentives for low-value imports. We have 4.2 million children growing up in poverty, and a 900% increase in the use of emergency food support in the 14 years that this Tory Government have wreaked their havoc from the Dispatch Box.
The reports are timely, and I thank the Committees for their work in bringing the scale of the issues to light. They illuminate the scale of hardship faced by many of our constituents and lay bare the tragic impact of unjustifiable political decisions and a lack of political leadership. The SNP believes that the Scottish people deserve better. We deserve to have full control of our food production, our imports and exports, our destiny and future, and the support that we provide to those who need it. The only way that we can rid ourselves of Tory chaos for good, and avoid the clutches of Labour’s born-again Thatcherites, is for an independent Scotland to return to its rightful place within the European Union. At the next general election, only the SNP will offer that choice to the Scottish electorate.

Daniel Zeichner: I congratulate all those who secured the debate, the three Select Committee Chairs on their very thoughtful introductions—exactly as one would expect—and the members of those Committees, who put in so much hard work. I assure all those people that I will look very closely at their recommendations. I also thank others for their contributions. I found myself very much in agreement with the comments on biosecurity made by the hon. Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I struggled slightly with some of the other contributions on hedgerow protection. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position of hedgerows being currently unprotected because the Government have failed to introduce legislation quickly enough.
On food security in general, I am delighted by the conversion of Government Members to the cause that Labour and I were advancing four years ago during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. Government Members consistently voted down our amendments proposing an annual food security review. We have now come to that point, which I welcome, but I remind those Members that it was not what they supported four or five years ago.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Daniel Zeichner: I will not take interventions, because Conservative Members have spoken at length this afternoon and we do not have much time. I do not mean in any way to disregard the significance of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
As far as Labour is concerned, food security is absolutely a matter of national security. As the reports point out, the sector has seen significant shocks over the last few years, as various climate events across the globe have impacted on so many crops and harvests, and made life so hard for many farmers, particularly the recent floods. However, some challenges are not consequences of things beyond our control; quite frankly, some have been made  worse by political decisions made here. Others—the skyrocketing costs of fertiliser, animal feed and energy—are consequences of the situation in Ukraine. Alongside that, there has been a difficult transition from the previous agricultural support system to ELMS, and persistent labour shortages.
I will ask the Minister about the Government’s response to John Shropshire’s good report on the agricultural workforce, which highlights many of the problems that the EFRA Committee report picks up. I think his analysis and many of his recommendations are sensible. He is very critical of the overly bureaucratic and slow administration of visas, and of the lack of a long-term strategic workforce plan, and he calls for urgent action from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when we might expect the Government to respond.
I could speak at length about ELMS—almost as long as others have—but I will not. It seems to me that ELMS have left too many people, particularly in the uplands, in a parlous state. Although I support the overall goals of that move to public money for public goods, I absolutely endorse the Environmental Audit Committee’s argument that food security is a public good—there is a bit of a discussion with economists about what those terms mean. I have been arguing for some time that food security should be a public good. We have not mentioned the problems that tenant farmers face at the moment. Will the Minister say a little about when we can expect more responses to Baroness Rock’s report, because they are long overdue?
Put all that together and it is pretty clear that we are seeing a decline in food production, which is disappointing and worrying. Staples such as eggs and some vegetables are in decline—there is less and less. At the NFU conference the other week, an interesting Farmers Guardian article rather summarised the situation pretty starkly:
“UK food production in free fall”.
Frankly, that is not the position that we want to be in. If that is to change, we must ensure that farm businesses get a decent return, because they are businesses, and for too many, the risk-reward ratio is out of kilter at the moment.
As we know, that has also hit consumers. The rise in prices has slowed, which is welcome—they were very high a few years ago—but prices are still going up. There is a whole range of reasons why that is happening. We also know that too many of our fellow citizens are struggling. The Trussell Trust statistics on the escalating reliance on food banks is deeply shocking. The EFRA Committee report echoes that feeling of, “Do they feel food secure? Clearly, they do not.” I welcome and agree with the Committee’s criticism of the fact that the Minister with responsibility for food has claimed that the issue of household affordability and access to food does not constitute food security.
There are many matters that I would be happy to cover, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am rushing through my remarks because I am conscious of time. Let me turn briefly to the food chain supply issues, and particularly waste, which is relevant to these discussions. It is pretty clear that pressures in the food chain, such as last-minute changes to specification, are leading to economic stress for producers and to disappointing levels of waste. One grower told me that, at best, he sells only about 50% of the lettuces that he grows. It is particularly depressing that that food is being wasted at a time when so many of  our fellow citizens are struggling. The NFU reported that as much as £60 million of food on farms was wasted in the first half of 2022 alone.
To turn briefly to pesticides, a very interesting set of observations was made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I would just point to the evidence that is given in the Science and Technology Committee’s report—the view of the experts on neonicotinoids. Once again, for the third year running, they pointed out that they were not able to support an authorisation for Cruiser SB because
“the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators”
outweigh the likely benefits. I am not going to rehearse the entire debate—we have also had debates on Westminster Hall on this issue—but it is clearly a major issue, and the public are clearly concerned. Quite frankly, it is time that we stopped ignoring expert advice.
However, I fully understand the problems that farmers face and the serious points that were raised by the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Sadly, it looks like the weather is not with us again this year, and we are going to see problems from virus yellows. I have been out in the field, looking at sugar beet plants with the British Beet Research Organisation, and there are some economic choices here. We might have to move to other varieties, but there is a yield penalty. To me, that is the decision and the challenge we face: not just producing food, but producing it in an environmentally sustainable and nature- positive way.
As I say, I am not going to go through all the recommendations, but I will just make a few comments. I take very seriously the points made by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about insect decline, and will look very closely at that issue. I have to say, I think the prospect of an invertebrates strategy will be a joy for parliamentary sketch writers, but possibly we can get them beyond that. I also echo the points about the wait for the national action plan on pesticides—it really is unacceptable. I hope the Minister can say something about it, but after a six-year wait, I do not think we are going to be holding our breath.
It will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear that Labour agrees with the Environmental Audit Committee report about using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that more food in our hospitals and prisons is locally produced. That is Labour policy, and I think it is also Government policy; the question is whether the Government can actually make it happen. Should we get the opportunity, we will endeavour to do so.
The land use framework is another thing that we are waiting for with bated breath. I have challenged a colleague of the Minister on new ways of defining the words “soon”, “next”, “spring” or whatever. We really would like to see that framework, but again, if this Government cannot do it, I hope whoever forms the next Government will pick it up. It is a really important point as we deal with the complicated trade-offs of trying to ensure food security while recovering nature and not causing further environmental damage.
Finally, I will just pick up on the points that Henry Dimbleby made, referred to in the EFRA Committee report. I do not want to reopen the whole debate, but  I do not think it is surprising that he says that in his view, the Government do not have anything resembling a proper food strategy, and that one is long overdue.
I reiterate my thanks for all the hard work that has been done to produce such comprehensive reports. I will be referring to them frequently for guidance—I already do so, because they identify some of the most urgent challenges we now face. To me, they are an example of Parliament working at its best, because they can inform not just Government thinking but certainly Opposition thinking too. For us, the goal of delivering food security and stability while optimising social, economic and environmental objectives is a priority.

Robbie Moore: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and also thank the Chairs of the three Select Committees for the valuable work they have done in pulling together the reports. Having been a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee before taking up my ministerial role, I know just how hard all Select Committees work, so I thank them for those reports.
UK food security, based on supply from diverse sources, is a top priority for this Government. We know just how important driving domestic food production is. As has been mentioned, we produce just over 60% of the food that we need, and 73% of the food that we can grow or rear in the UK for all or part of the year. Those figures have changed little over the past 20 years, but it is worth noting that the Government’s desire is to ensure that our domestic food production is enhanced.
A strong domestic food production system is the foundation of our food security, which is why we as a Government have committed £2.4 billion to supporting food producers. The Farm to Fork summit last year brought together over 70 businesses with the aim of growing a thriving British food and drink sector. It was hailed a great success by many of the stakeholders who attended—the Chairs of the three Select Committees noted just how valuable it was—which is why the Prime Minister has announced that we will be holding a further summit this spring.
We as a Government take a holistic view of food security, considering it across the five themes set out in the UK food security report. That report is an analysis of the statistics relating to food security that DEFRA is required to produce under the Agriculture Act 2020 to present to Parliament every three years. The report includes chapters with statistics on trends in global food production, total population demand, price inflation and sustainability. The global chapter of the UK food security report sits alongside chapters on other key aspects of food security, both domestic and international, to ensure that we are taking a holistic approach that considers links across the food system. The first UK food security report was published in December 2021, and the next food security report will be published in December this year.
All Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), have recognised just how important those reports are, as is  the addition of the food security index, which was announced by the Prime Minister at the National Farmers Union conference. In addition to our existing robust processes for monitoring the UK’s food security, the food security index will complement the three-yearly food security report. We are currently developing the content of the index, but we expect it to present the key data and analysis needed to monitor how we are maintaining and enhancing our current levels of food security. We will publish the first draft of the food security index during the second UK Farm to Fork summit in the spring. The requirement for an annual food security index will be put on a statutory footing when parliamentary time allows.
A key challenge, which all countries are facing, is how we meet our climate and environmental objectives while maintaining a high level of food security. Domestically, the Government have committed to maintain the current level of food that we produce, but we want to enhance it to unleash our domestic potential. This includes sustainably boosting production in sectors in which there are post- Brexit opportunities, such as the horticulture and seafood sectors.
We know that food production and environmental improvement can and must go hand in hand. Our environmental land management schemes, which support climate and environmental outcomes as well as food production, are absolutely part of that. We have already ensured that our existing environmental schemes support food production. For instance, actions in the sustainable farming incentive support the creation of flower-rich buffers, which help pollinators, and that in turn helps with crop reduction.
The Agriculture Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England, and its production in an environmentally sustainable way, when framing any financial assistance scheme. That is why our reforms aim to support a highly productive food producing sector, and one that is more environmentally sustainable.
Many Members asked about the land use framework. It will be published this year, but I want to reiterate that the reason why it has not been published to date is that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team have been very keen to make sure that it relates to enhancing our food production and making sure that food security is at its very core. When we are balancing the use of land as a finite resource that is being pulled in all different directions—for energy security, biodiversity offsetting, net zero targets, housing, infrastructure—we need to make sure that food security is considered at the heart of it.
Many Members, including the Chairs of the Select Committees, referred to pesticides, which play an important role in UK food security.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s report, “Insect decline and UK food security”, states that there was a consensus among key industry stakeholders, academics, charities and farming representatives that
“pesticides, even if only used as a last resort, are needed for UK food production.”
However, it notes that they must be used sustainably, and the Government’s first priority on pesticides is to ensure that they will not harm people or impose unacceptable risks to the environment. A pesticide may only be placed on the market in Great Britain if a  product has been authorised by the regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, following a thorough scientific risk assessment that concludes that all safety standards have been met.
Reference has been made to the national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides. It will set out DEFRA’s ambition to minimise the risks and impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment, including how we intend to increase the uptake of integrated pest management across all sectors. We hope to publish that national action plan imminently. However, we have not waited for its publication, and we have been moving forward with work to support sustainable pest management, and DEFRA has funded a package of research projects that bring together scientific evidence underpinning integrated pest management. We look at ways of further encouraging its uptake.

Greg Clark: I am encouraged by the imminence of the publication of the action plan. Can the Minister confirm that “imminently” will mean that it will meet the recommendation of my Committee’s report, to which he referred, which echoes the report of the Environmental Audit Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), that it should be by May at the latest?

Robbie Moore: I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for his intervention. I reassure him that officials are working at pace, based on the recommendations of all the Select Committee Chairs, to ensure that we can get the announcement made as soon as possible. I want to reassure him on that.
Pollinators were raised, and we know that bees and other pollinators play an essential role in our £100 billion food industry. The economic benefit of insect pollination to UK agriculture is estimated at more than £500 million a year. I reassure all Members of the House that we have already taken action. We have announced 20 new nature-based solutions across the country, funded by a £25 million species survival fund, and that is in addition to the 12 nature recovery projects and 54 further projects that we have funded through the landscape recovery scheme. Under the pollinator strategy, we have already established a world-leading pollinator monitoring scheme for farmland that delivers food and fuel for pollinators.
Many points have been made throughout this debate, and I simply do not have time to respond to all of them, but I am happy to meet Members who have raised queries throughout the debate. In closing, in the last few seconds that I have, I reiterate that the UK has strong food security, and we are keen to enhance that. We are not taking that for granted. We are working across the supply chain to maintain and enhance food security across multiple policy areas, but it is worrying that Labour wants to roll out the blueprint it has established in Wales across the UK, should it get to power. I worry for farmers, and I worry how seriously Labour is taking food security, given that not one Labour Back Bencher contributed to such an important debate on food security.
I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate, including the Chairs of the Select Committees, my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells   (Greg Clark), for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who have made their valuable contributions.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to the Minister and all who have spoken for their warm words about the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) from the other Select Committees, and the work that all members of Select Committees put into these reports. I share the Minister’s concern that not a single Back Bencher from any Opposition party contributed to this debate. All the contributions came from those on the Government Benches, but I welcome the remarks made by the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who both seem to take food security seriously. We will have to see how that is converted into any action.
On the subject on action, I was relieved that the Minister sought to introduce some new definitions to parliamentary terminology. I have not heard a Minister use the expression “imminently” before. The expressions “soon”, “in the spring” and “when parliamentary time allows” are well recognised expressions for general delay and obfuscation, but I hope that “imminently” brings a new urgency. He also referred to his officials working “at pace”, so we look forward to that.
I conclude by congratulating and thanking Conservative Back Benchers for their contributions, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who, as a former Secretary of State, brings particular expertise to her contributions. She pointed out that we should not be looking to Wales as a blueprint for future food security, given the devastating impact that the proposals of the Welsh Government are having on farm incomes and food production. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) spoke about the importance of the effective border controls for phytosanitary requirements, as we rely on both imports and exports for food businesses and food security in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) brought his considerable expertise in animal health to the deliberations. I rather apologise for having personalised my intervention, but he is able to speak with considerable authority on the challenges of animal health. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) was referring to the challenges of waste in the food supply chain. She made important comments on that, which I hope we will see turn into action with the waste food report, whether that is “imminent”, “soon” or “in the spring”. Again, I thank all Members for participating in this debate.

Nigel Evans: I shall put the question imminently, or indeed shortly, if not now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of food security, including the effects on it of environmental change and of insect decline.

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Lilian Greenwood: I rise to present this petition on the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, owing to this Government’s failure to provide justice or compensation to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Victims of this scandal and their families have been subjected to unimaginable trauma during their search for justice, and for many of them time is running out. There can be no more delays. Steps must be taken to establish a final body to pay compensation urgently.
The petition states:
“The petition of residents of the constituency of Nottingham South,
Declares that people who have received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain etc.”
[P002933]

Trailer and Towing Safety

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Suzanne Webb.)

Karin Smyth: It has been a decade since a child was killed in my constituency by a runaway trailer. Freddie was just three years old. A 2-tonne trailer came loose from a nearby car as he walked down the street near his home. The consequences of the unsecured tow hitch were fatal. Shortly after I became an MP, I met Freddie’s parents, in 2016. Since then I have campaigned to improve towing safety standards. I am grateful tonight to have the chance to focus the mind of the current Minister on this important topic, and I thank him for talking with me.
Sadly, not enough has been done over the past three years to ensure that our roads are safe for trailers. Back in 2016, when I first met the family, they had researched previous cases and learned that there were other families like theirs. This was not a one-off, and it could have been prevented if better safety checks had been in place. One example that came to light was the death of a four-year-old boy killed by a trailer that had broken free from a car in the Amber Valley constituency in 2007. The then Minister, the former Member for Poplar and Limehouse, commented at that time:
“Introducing MOT-style tests for such trailers is a possibility that we have considered before, and it is a matter that we keep under review. There have been several such accidents in recent months, and I will certainly consider the matter with officials in the Department to see whether we need to move on that”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1354.]
The Road Traffic Act 1988 states that it is an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, and we know that there are many trailers on our roads that are dangerous and in need of repair. We need to do so much more to stop further tragedies from happening.
Since 2015, I have met many road safety Ministers, and I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) for their time and support in looking at this issue and working with me and the family. I also thank the current Minister’s predecessors, Baroness Vere of Norbiton and the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who have reported to the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, which I chair.
In those years there have been many successes in the campaign. I held two trailer safety summits—in March 2017 and April 2018—in Bedminster, where the accident happened, involving Freddie’s family and key stakeholders. In July 2017 the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative—the first of its kind in the UK—which meant that, through its network of accredited members, any light trailer could be given a free 10 to 15-minute visual inspection of key points, and a written report completed. The campaign has also worked with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency on a campaign on driver behaviour and the creation of the hashtag #towsafe4freddie. That brings together vital information about towing safely and has hugely increased awareness of the issue among drivers.
Following my amendments to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill in 2018, the Government had to undertake a statutory report into trailer safety, which was published in July 2019. That was a huge milestone in the campaign. The findings of the Government’s report reinforced the urgency of the issue. As part of the actions of the report, the DVSA conducted roadside checks of light trailers between 2019 and 2021. I was able to join such a roadside check near Bristol.
From the report, we know the horrifying fact that half of all light trailers are non-compliant with safety standards. I was deeply shocked and concerned to learn that 40% of those vehicles were so dangerous that they needed immediate repairs. When people think of towing, they often think of caravans, but we know from the data that caravans and responsible commercial companies are not the issue; it is personal light trailers that contribute to these shocking statistics.
The Government know that a disgraceful number of vehicles on our roads are deeply unsafe—their own statutory report tells them that—so why have they failed to act on that information or to progress the work from the report that they said they would do? Following the statutory report in 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North, then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, said that a “focus must be maintained on driving up the safety of these trailers.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]
That is absolutely imperative.
My ask of the Minister is that trailer safety be put at the forefront of the agenda once more. That is because trailer safety is a key part of safety on our roads. The potentially deadly consequences of unsecure trailers demonstrate the need for mandatory safety checks on trailers and formal testing for those using them. The statutory report made the case for that clearly: it recommended considering “revisions and improvements” to the test that drivers use to undertake in order to hold a licence to tow light vehicles—the so-called B+E test. With one in two light vehicles on our roads unroadworthy, that knowledge and training is paramount.
As the former Minister stated in 2019, in his response to the report
“there is further work in this area which the Government will take forward.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 62WS.]
That was set out in a work programme from the statutory report. Those were actions that I and the APPG, working closely with industry, officials in the Department and Ministers, were happy to see progress. I thank all those officials for the work they did.
Yet following the 2019 election, we have had a complete U-turn. I was appalled and horrified when in 2021 the Government introduced a statutory instrument that scrapped the towing test altogether, meaning that any driver with a standard B driving licence could tow without further instruction on how to do so safely. This was a reckless decision with potentially dangerous consequences. According to Department for Transport data, 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail, yet we are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads.

Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her dogged pursuit of this issue. I wonder whether, knowing the appalling state of many of our roads in this country—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am afraid we have to go through the technical nicety of the Whip moving the Adjournment again.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Suzanne Webb.)

Lilian Greenwood: That took me by surprise. I was wondering whether the state of our roads, which many people are aware of, adds to the danger posed by the issues with trailers and driver awareness that she has set out.

Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yes, if the trailer is not towed safely, any damage in the roads—road bumps, potholes and so on—will add to the stress on trailers. That could have more lethal consequences.
The Government’s own impact assessment, which was not released until after the statutory instrument had passed, stated that this legislation could
“have implications for competence of drivers to tow trailers safely”
and
“may potentially increase the road safety risk”.
That was deeply worrying not only for those who have lost loved ones through unsafe towing, but for those in the wider industry, many of whom contacted me to share their anxieties. The public have no idea that so many defective vehicles are on our roads, and now the Government have scrapped the mandatory training that would have helped drivers to understand the importance of safety checks on their vehicles. We have evidence that trailer safety is a serious problem, yet the legislation was deemed “fit for purpose”. The only consolation was that it would be reviewed after three years, which will be at the end of this year.
Two-and-a-half years into this outrageous piece of legislation, I hope that the Minister has a good understanding now of its impact on road safety, and I would welcome an update from him. Between 2019 and 2021, 50% of light trailers were defective. Can the Minister confirm whether that statistic has changed? What recent data does he hold on defective vehicles? He needs to explain what data will be used to assess the impact of the instrument as part of the review and how this data is being collected.
The impact assessment stated that the overall accident rate would have to rise by an average of 14% per year to negate all the benefits of the legislation. I wonder whether the Minister thinks that a 14% increase in accidents is acceptable. How many people could lose their lives or be seriously injured because of this legislation? Surely we should be trying to make our roads safer, with drivers supported and informed to take all the safety measures they need.
There are some who point to the voluntary accreditation scheme for drivers wishing to tow. That information is available to the proactive, responsible drivers who seek it, but the clue is in the name: it is voluntary. The number of drivers undergoing training has fallen through the floor. Department for Transport data shows that from over 29,000 people in one year taking the mandatory B+E test, we now have fewer than 500 taking up the  voluntary scheme in the 18 months since it was introduced —a drop of 98%. That is an astonishing percentage. The very real consequence of that is more unsafe trailers on our roads.
What measures is the Minister taking to increase the number of people accessing the voluntary training? What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who use our roads are trained to tow and understand the dangers of unsafe towing? We need a coherent plan for our roads that recognises the importance of trailer safety. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can re-embed the findings and actions of the 2019 statutory report on trailer safety into the current roads strategy.
I have very much enjoyed working collaboratively with Ministers to improve trailer safety. Over the past five years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. I hope we can take this moment to refresh that relationship and work together to ensure the safety of all who use our roads. Gathering more and better information on the safety of trailers and the skills of those towing them is crucial. It is through the data that we uncovered the scale of the problem in the first place, and it will be through gathering new data that we can pave the way for improvements in the future. Does the Minister agree that this is of the utmost importance? If so, when and how is he planning to collect that new data?
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety, I thank all of my colleagues who have supported and publicised the issue in this place over the past six years. I thank those stakeholders in the towing industry who have done all they can to improve trailer safety—in particular, the contributions of the National Caravan Council and the work of Alicia Dunne at the council have been hugely valuable. Those working in the industry know how important it is to improve trailer safety. Their work in raising awareness and improving driver behaviour and knowledge has been crucial.
Finally, I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of Freddie’s family. I thank them for all they have done to shine a light on this issue and to educate me. If the Minister takes away one thing from today’s debate, I hope that he will remember the lives behind the statistics. Families across the country have been impacted by poor and ill-thought-out legislation—I know that the Minister did not bring the legislation to the House. Improving trailer safety saves lives, and I hope he agrees that we must do all we can to enable drivers to tow safely.

Guy Opperman: It is an honour and a privilege to respond to the hon. Lady’s thoughtful, heartfelt and impressive speech on an issue that she clearly cares passionately about. She has done herself great credit not just tonight but throughout the long campaign she has waged. I pay massive tribute to her. There is much criticism in this place of all-party groups, but she has provided an example of one that has championed a cause and brought about significant change. It also ensures that its importance to both the families concerned and the wider industry is heard, championed and hopefully acted upon. I wanted to put that first point on the record.
It is patently clear from the hon. Lady’s speech that she cares passionately about this issue. Like many constituency MPs, she is motivated, sadly, by the learned experience of a constituent. I, too, pay due tribute to the Hussey family, who clearly have been through a terrible ordeal and have resolved that good should come out of the tragedy that sadly they have undergone. I pass on my condolences. The hon. Lady’s last comment is entirely right. It is important that in this House, in whatever position, we remember the lived experience of the people who suffer injuries and difficulties, in relation to road safety and all other accidents, up and down the country. Whatever the circumstance, whether it was their fault or otherwise, we must be sensitive to that. None of us has been unaffected by tragedy in our lives. We should remember and be empathetic to that at all stages.
I want to put some points on the record, but I want to cut to the chase on one particular point. I will go through the journey of how we got to where we are in a bit of detail. There will be a three-year review, following the passage of the legislation on 8 November 2021. It is important to understand that, normally, a Government do not review legislation before five years. She knows because she spoke in the debate—I read her comments in the debate on the regulations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) responded, fairly late at night on 8 November—that the legislation arose out of covid. It was a decision made in the circumstances to address the HGV driver shortage. It is accepted that there is a need for a review—that was written in.
The reason that this debate is particularly apposite is simply that the process has begun. This debate and the hon. Lady’s comments bring force to the particular points. I want to assure her that she, her APPG, the individual families and the very worthy organisations that have assisted her will have an opportunity to make representations. They can be made in two ways. They can be written representations to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. With all matters government, the Government are responsible for everything. However, in this particular case, she knows that it is an arm’s length body, the DVSA, which runs the process. I have two officials in the Box today who are in charge of that process and I spoke to them beforehand. We most definitely can assure her and interested parties that evidence can be submitted in writing or in person. We are very happy for the DVSA to sit down with her APPG in the summer months, when we return to the House, and listen and take on representations by any individual in any way. If that needs to be done by way of a personal visit, we will do our best to accommodate that in the usual way without necessarily going all over the country, as she will understand.
My point is that we acknowledge and accept that a review needs to be done. I want to stress that all options are available to that review. Often, Ministers respond to that by saying, “Well, I can’t comment on the process of the review.” To a certain extent, I am a bit limited in how I can approach it. Self-evidently, a Minister, whether before or after the general election, will have to make a decision on the recommendation of the DVSA, but  a review will unquestionably take place. I have made it very clear to the DVSA that that will need to be published within three years of the date of the passage of the   legislation, which as I understand it is 8 November. That is the timeframe. This is the evidence-gathering period. With respect, I hope that is the key point that arises.
Turning to a few particular points arising from the debate, it is not always that case that APPGs have such a close relationship with an arm’s length body which is not part of the Government but also slightly part of Government. What is very clear is that the DVSA and the hon. Lady’s APPG have a very close relationship. I read its submission on 27 February, by way of a written update, to the APPG. It is pretty detailed. I know that they met last year. I would like to think that that will continue apace.
The hon. Lady went through the history in quite a lot of detail. It is obviously the case that in 2018 we made it an offence to tow an unroadworthy trailer and strengthened the penalties. There are roadside vehicle checks to monitor compliance. I attempted to find out exactly how many people are doing the checks on an ongoing basis. I cannot give a definitive day-by-day figure, but it is clearly a significant number of people. I will ensure that, as part of the review, that is set out in detail, because it is right and proper that the public know that a taxpayer-funded, arm’s length body is spending an appropriate amount of time doing those checks. I have read the submission made in detail to the APPG in February. I stand by every part of that, and I do not think that there is any point I would wish to amplify. On the most recent statistics, the timing is not brilliant because the 2023-24 trailer safety survey, with the enforcement stats, effectively concludes on 31 March. We will know the annual figure at the end of this month, but it will be available and appropriate for the review.
On the reasons behind the removal of the B test, it is unquestionably the case that that was one of the 33 measures put in place to address the heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. The Department for Transport and the arm’s length body are considering a number of different actions as a result of what was, quite clearly, a fairly speedy piece of legislation to address a moment of great critical importance.
The hon. Lady is clearly aware of the change and what it allowed, and of the industry-led accredited training scheme, so I will not repeat what she has already said in her speech. As she rightly pointed out, the take-up of the training has not been as we would have liked it to be, and that obviously needs to be addressed. The DVSA is committed to supporting the scheme by seeking further opportunities to promote the accredited training route—increasing awareness of the benefits of doing so, sending clear messages about the importance of safety, and generally doing everything possible in a host of ways, ranging from social media to instructions to organisations —in order to enhance and increase both training uptake and safe towing practices.
The hon. Lady is also aware of the two surveys that have been conducted, the first in February 2023 and the second in June of that year. The DVSA engaged in extensive work with the Trailer Training Advisory Group to devise the questions and topics for the second survey, and to consider the results. It received 1,000 responses—a  significant number—and promoted its findings during the National Trailer and Towing Association’s Trailer Safety Week in June 2023.
The hon. Lady rightly spoke of the efforts that will be necessary in the future. Following the accumulation of evidence, the DVSA has identified target groups for the purpose of its communications, with leisure users the main target audience for the current year. As we approach the towing season, it will engage the caravan and leisure industry; indeed, that process has already begun, because Easter is not far away.

Karin Smyth: I am grateful to the Minister for his diligence and his respect for this issue, and for examining the history behind it. I look forward to working with him further and taking up his offer to follow it through with his officials. I am glad that that is in train, and that a bit more light is being shone on the issue. I think that this will give some reassurance to people following the debate, and I look forward to being part of it.

Guy Opperman: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I want to emphasise that this is a constructive process. It is in all our interests to ensure that it has the assurance and understanding of the House, and that the appropriate balance is struck between legislation and any freedoms that may or may not be enjoyed.
Let me say a little about the extent of the instruction and advice. The DVSA will explore ways of targeting people at various points in the towing journey—I do not think that that is quite how it should have been phrased—including the point of sale of a trailer or caravan, whether it is new or second-hand; obviously acquisition is a key factor. There will be interventions at various stages of journeys and at destinations. The purpose is to ensure that safety considerations are at the forefront of drivers’ minds at crucial points in their journeys.
We have the opportunity this year to address these issues and to reach a view on what is the appropriate way forward, but I believe that the appropriate way forward is for the independent arm’s length body to go away and do its work, taking on as much evidence as it sees fit but starting with an open mind, looking at all aspects of the process. That will include safety, and all the benefits and burdens stemming from the legislation that I mentioned earlier. I commit myself to building on the progress that has been made, but also to continuing to examine the policy closely, gathering the data and ensuring that messages are communicated effectively to reach the right audience.
I thank the hon. Lady again for initiating the debate. I endorse her comments on previous occupants of my post who have worked constructively with her and with the all-party parliamentary group, and I commend this debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.